HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19-2020 Hearing Examiner AgendaHEARING EXAMINER
August 19, 2020
5:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers
25 West Main Street
The meeting of the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner scheduled for August 19, 2020 at 5:30
p.m. will be held virtually and telephonically. To attend the meeting virtually please click
the link or enter the meeting ID into the Zoom app or call into the meeting at the phone
number listed below.
Per the Governor’s Emergency Proclamtion 20-28, the City of Auburn is prohibited from
holding an in-person meeting at this time.
Per City of Auburn Resolution No. 5533, the location for Hearing Examiner meetings will
be virtual until King County enters into Phase 3 of the Governor's Safe Start Reopening
Plan.
The link to the Virtual Meeting or Phone number to listen to the Hearing Examiner is:
Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device:
Please click this URL to join:
https://zoom.us/j/95658282714
Or join by phone:
253 215 8782
877 853 5257 (Toll-free)
Meeting ID: 956 5828 2714
I.Case No:CUP19-0003
Applicant(s):Phil Wood
Dermody Properties (Contract Owner)
11900 NE 1st Street Suite 300
Bellevue, WA 98005
Agent: Howard Jeng, Project Manager
Nelson Worldwide
1200 5th Ave., Suite 1300
Seattle, WA 98101
Property Owner: Mark A. Segale, President
Auburn 8th Street LLC
PO Box 88028
Page 1 of 380
Page 2
Tukwila, WA 98138
Request: Revision of a previously authorized Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) for 2 warehouses on a site within the M-2, Heavy
Industrial zoning district. The sizes of the proposed buildings
are being reduced from 157,400 to 80,800 sq. ft. and 172,500
to 158,100 sq. ft. in size.
Project Location: The project site is located at 901 C St. SW, on the West side
of C St. SW; approximately 400 feet north of the intersection
with 15th St. SW. see Vicinity Map, Exhibit 2.
Parcel Number(s): King Co. Parcel Nos. 242104-9001 and 242104-9054.
II. Case No: PLT18-0001
Applicant: Matt Weber, PE
Principal
AHBL, Inc.
2215 N 30th St., Suite 300
Tacoma, WA 98403
Sheri Green
Project Administrator
AHBL, Inc.
2215 N. 30th St., Suite 300
Tacoma, WA 98403
Property Owner: Phil Mitchell
Mitchell Development II, LLC
910 Traffic Ave
Sumner, WA 98390
Request: Preliminary plat application to subdivide approximately 4.5
acres into 17 single-family residential lots and 6 tracts in the
R-5, Residential Zoning District.
Project Location: The project site is located west of 132nd Ave. S and north of
SE 306th St., within NW¼ of Section 10, Township 21, Range
5.
Parcel Numbers: King County Assessor Parcel Nos. 1021059059 and
1021059095
Page 2 of 380
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
HEARING EXAMINER
Agenda Subject/Title:
File No. CUP19-0003 Conditional Use
Permit Application for LogistiCenter at
Auburn
Date:
August 5, 2020
Department:
Community Development
DESCRIPTION:
Revision of a previously authorized Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for 2 warehouses on a site
within the M-2, Heavy Industrial zoning district. The sizes of the proposed buildings are being
reduced from 157,400 to 80,800 sq. ft. and 172,500 to 158,100 sq. ft. in size.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION:
Hearing Examiner to conduct a public hearing and approve the requested Conditional Use
Permit, with conditions.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
Dermody Properties has requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct two new single-
story speculative warehouse buildings on an approximately 18.72 acre property composed of
two parcels located within the M-2, Heavy Industrial zoning district. The proposed buildings are
approximately 80,800 sq. ft. and 158,100 sq. ft.
LOCATION:
The project site is located at 901 C St. SW, on the West side of C St. SW , approximately 400
feet North of the intersection with 15th St. SW. see Vicinity Map, Exhibit 2. King Co. Parcel Nos.
242104-9001 and 242104-9054.
STAFF: Jeremy Hammar, Planner
APPLICANT: Phil Wood
Dermody Properties (Contract Owner)
11900 NE 1st Street Suite 300
Bellevue, WA 98005
AGENT: Howard Jeng, Project Manager
Nelson Worldwide
1200 5th Ave., Suite 1300
Seattle, WA 98101
Page 3 of 380
Staff Member: Hammar
Date: August 5, 2020
Page 2 of 13
PROPERTY
OWNER: Mark A. Segale, President
Auburn 8th Street LLC
PO Box 88028
Tukwila, WA 98138
SEPA STATUS:
A SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued on January 30, 2020 with a
comment period ending February 14, 2020.. No comments have were submitted in response to
the required public notice.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Howard Jeng, Project Manager, of Nelson Worldwide on behalf of Phil Wood of
Dermody Properties, (Applicant) submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) on October 18, 2019. The CUP application is for construction of two speculative
warehouses in the M-2, Heavy Industrial zoning district. Future tenant or tenants are not
identified.
2. February 19, 2020 the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner granted a decision of approval
for the CUP following a public hearing.
3. The applicant submitted an adjustment to the site plan on June 17, 2020. Auburn city
code 18.64.035(C) indicates that an adjustment which varies more than 10 percent from
the original shall be considered a Major Adjustment. The review and approval process of
a major adjustment shall be substantially the same as the original Conditional Use
Permit.
18.64.035(C)2.a. The submittal requirements, and review and approval process for a
major adjustment to the site plan of an approved administrative or conditional use permit
shall be substantially the same as that required for the original administrative or
conditional use permit. An application for major adjustment meeting the information
requirements of ACC 18.64.030 shall be submitted. At the discretion of the planning
director or designee, the applicant may be able to resubmit or incorporate by reference
some portions of the original administrative or conditional use permit submittal as part of
the application for major adjustment; however, the application for major adjustment shall
be subject to the same submittal, processing, and findings of fact requirements of this
chapter for administrative or conditional use permits, as applicable.
4. The site is located at 901 C St. SW . The main part of the site is approximately 630 feet
west of C St. SW for a pipestem portion of the lot that connects to C St SW. The site is
flat, approximately 18.72 acres in size and roughly square in shape with an indent at the
SE corner
5. The site is currently vacant except for a wetland area and associated buffer and a
separate temporary storm pond near the northwest corner. The Site has been
previously filled and graded as authorized by City permit.
Page 4 of 380
Staff Member: Hammar
Date: August 5, 2020
Page 3 of 13
6. While the Site is referred to as “901 C St SW”, the Site does not border the north-south
aligned C St. SW. Instead, it has two access points to public streets. The southeast
corner of the Site has a diagonal pipestem portion of the lot, leading to C St. SW. Also,
the northeast corner of the Site borders the cul-de-sac of the east-west aligned 8th St.
SW , extending west from C St. SW.
7. The area surrounding the site is summarized in the following table:
Comprehensive Plan
Designation Zoning Classification Current Land
Use
Project
Site Heavy Industrial M-2, Heavy Industrial Vacant
North Light Industrial M-1, Light Industrial Warehouse and
hotel
South Heavy Industrial M-2, Heavy Industrial
Vacant
Warehouse/ COA
M&O Facility with
school bus facility
and park beyond
East Heavy Commercial C-3, Heavy Commercial
Logistics Facility
West Heavy Industrial M-2 Heavy Industrial Zone
Railroad &
Interurban Trail
with Shopping
mall beyond
8. The City’s land use regulations and zoning development standards are contained in
Chapter 18.23 ACC (Commercial and Industrial Zones). Per ACC Table 18.23.030,
“warehousing and distribution” uses within the M-2 zone require issuance of a CUP.
There is not a specific definition within the City’s code for “warehousing and distribution”.
The proposed development configuration consists of a 80,800 sq. ft. building in the north
half of the site (Building A) and a 158,100 sq. ft. building in the south half of the site
(Building B) with a central truck court, between. The facing walls on each side of the
central truck court contain a row of dock height doors. There are a total of 63 dock doors
By the relative building sizes compared to the number of loading bays, the project does
not meet the definition of “motor freight terminal” (ACC 18.04.635) which is characterized
by “. . .more than one dock per 5,000 square feet of warehouse, storage, or related use
and used for either (A) the loading, unloading, dispensing, receiving, interchanging,
gathering, or otherwise physically handling freight for shipment. . .” A “motor freight
terminal “is not a permitted use in the M-2 zone.
9. ACC 18.57.020(C)(1) includes additional development standards for warehousing and
distribution uses as follows:
“a. Motor freight transportation is permitted but only as an incidental use to the principal
use of the property.
Page 5 of 380
Staff Member: Hammar
Date: August 5, 2020
Page 4 of 13
b. Loading and unloading docks shall not be visible from the street. If this requirement
cannot be met, an additional 10-foot width of landscaping along the abutting street,
meeting the provisions of ACC 18.50.040(C) (Landscape Design and Planting
Requirements), is required.
c. All odors, noise, vibrations, heat, glare, or other emissions shall be controlled within
the confines of a building unless specifically permitted elsewhere by this title.
d. No on-site hazardous substance processing and handling, or hazardous waste
treatment and storage facilities, shall be permitted, unless clearly incidental and
secondary to a permitted use. On-site hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities
shall be subject to the state siting criteria (Chapter 70.105 RCW).”
10. Per ACC 18.02.030(A), the intent of Title 18 ACC ‘Zoning’, is to:
“…implement the City’s Comprehensive Plan. This title will be used to further the growth
and development of the City consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and its
implementing elements. This title will also further the purpose of promoting the health,
safety, morals, convenience, comfort, prosperity, and general welfare of the City’s
population and to prevent and abate public nuisances.”
11. In accordance with ACC 18.64.010 the intent of the Conditional Use (land use) Permit
application, is:
“A. It is the intent of this chapter to provide a process to allow for uses that are not
permitted outright within a zone. Such uses typically require a special degree of control
to make sure that they are consistent with the intent of the zone and compatible with
other existing and permitted uses within the zone. Only those uses listed as requiring
either an administrative or conditional use permit within a particular zone qualify for this
process. The planning director or designee may determine that other similar uses which
are not listed may also qualify for this process. This process shall not replace the
variance procedure in Chapter 18.70 ACC or be used to permit uses that are prohibited
within the zone.”
“C. Uses subject to conditional use approval are those uses that typically have a greater
intensity and/or potential for impacts to surrounding properties, and/or special
characteristics that may not generally be appropriate as a use permitted outright within a
zone, but may be permitted subject to review by the hearing examiner to establish
conditions to protect public health, safety and welfare, and to assure compatibility with
other uses in the zone.”
12. Per ACC 18.23.020(I) the stated intent of the M-2 zone is to:
“…accommodate a broad range of manufacturing and industrial uses. Permitted activity
may vary from medium to higher intensity uses that involve the manufacture, fabrication,
assembly, or processing of raw and/or finished materials. Heavy industrial uses should
not be located near residential development. While other uses may be sited within this
zone, permits for such uses should not be issued if such uses will discourage use of
Page 6 of 380
Staff Member: Hammar
Date: August 5, 2020
Page 5 of 13
adjacent sites for heavy industry, interrupt the continuity of industrial sites, or produce
traffic in conflict with the industrial uses”
13. The City’s Comprehensive Plan describes the “Heavy Industrial” land use designation
as:
“This designation allows the full range of industrial uses, as well as certain heavy
commercial uses that serve the needs of workers in light industries are also appropriate.”
14. A Notice of Application (NOA) and Notice of Public Hearing (NOH) was issued on
January 30, 2020. No written comments were received.
15. A SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) and revised NOH was issued on
January 30, 2020. No written comments were received as of the date of this Staff
Report.
16. Per ACC 18.64.020(B) the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner is authorized to conduct a
public hearing and render a final decision for the requested CUP. The Hearing
Examiner’s decision is appealable to King Co. Superior Court.
17. Per ACC 18.64.030(C) a site plan that includes the details set forth in ACC 18.64.035(A)
is required and shall be made a part of the final decision per ACC 18.64.035(B). This site
plan is included as Exhibit 3.
The Applicant has provided a narrative of the project and how it conforms to the CUP
approval criteria as Exhibit 4.
CONCLUSIONS:
ACC 18.64.040 contains the criteria for approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The following is a
staff analysis of this Conditional Use Permit application’s compliance with each criterion. The
criteria are listed below in italics, followed by a staff analysis.
A. The use will not have a substantively greater adverse effect on the health, safety, or
comfort of persons living or working in the area and will not be substantively more
injurious, economically or otherwise, to property or improvements in the surrounding
area than would any use generally permitted in the district. Among matters to be
considered are traffic flow and control, access to and circulation within the property, off-
street parking and loading, refuse and service area, utilities, screening and buffering,
signs, yards and other open spaces, height, bulk, and location of structures, location of
proposed open space uses, hours and manner of operation, and noise, lights, dust,
odor, fumes and vibration;
Staff Analysis: ’C’ St. SW is designated a principal arterial and also a local truck
route within the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Access to the site will
be provided by driveways on ‘C’ St. SW and 8th St. SW (connects directly to ‘C’
Page 7 of 380
Staff Member: Hammar
Date: August 5, 2020
Page 6 of 13
St. SE) to meet International Fire Code (IFC) requirements for access. The ‘C’ St
SW driveway will be restricted to right-in, right-out while the 8th St SW driveway
will be full access.
Trip generation and Levels of Service (LOS) is included in the Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) (Exhibit 7) and indicates that off-site intersections included in the
study (as coordinated with the City’s Senior Traffic Engineer) will continue to
operate at an LOS C or better. No additional traffic mitigation measures are
necessitated.
Refuse and service areas will be located internal to the site and adequately
screened with fencing and vegetation, consistent with ACC 18.50.040(5)(a).
Utility facility locations (e.g. PSE) are not known at this time, however, will be
coordinated with the site landscaping to ensure they are adequately screened, as
conditioned below. A minimum of 10% of the site must be in landscaping,
consistent with Zoning Code Standards of Chapter 18.50 ACC.
The location of this facility and enclosed nature of the facility does not currently
lend itself to limiting the hours and manners of operation as it is not located near
any noise-sensitive uses, such as residential. The closest noise sensitive use is a
hotel located approximately 315 feet from the northwest corner of the Site.
According to the TIA (Exhibit #7) the proposed project is estimated to generate
567 weekday daily trips, with 65 trips occurring during the weekday AM peak
hour (50 entering, 15 exiting), and 67 trips occurring during the weekday PM
peak hour (18 entering, 49 exiting) while this is based on a speculative tenant the
exact numbers are not known at this time, there could be potential impacts to
roadways with the increase of truck traffic during events at the Outlet Collection
(shopping mall) such as during the holidays, sports tournaments (at Fieldhouse
USA (indoor sports field complex), currently under construction in the former
Sam’s Club tenant space at the mall), and other events (such as carnivals).
Such impacts would be temporary. Payment of the City of Auburn transportation
impact fee will mitigate permanent project-related transportation impacts of the
proposed 330,000 sq. ft. warehouse
All industrial facilities are subject to ACC 18.31.180 ‘Performance Standards’; as
such, the proposed use would meet the limits for noise, odors, etc. listed in this
Code section.
The Applicant provided the following response for this criterion:
“The use will not have substantively greater adverse effect on the health, safety
or comfort of persons living or working in the area. The use for this site will
maintain the same use. The site is isolated and there is no direct street frontage
except for the ingress/egress points. The site is bounded by railroad track and
the Interurban Trail on the west, by an Industrial service center on the east, by an
industrial warehouse facility to the north, and by a vacant industrial site to the
south. Since the site is undeveloped, this development will bring jobs to this area
and better the economy.”
Page 8 of 380
Staff Member: Hammar
Date: August 5, 2020
Page 7 of 13
B. The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies, and objectives of the
comprehensive plan;
Staff Analysis: The site has a Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) Land Use Designation
of “Heavy Industrial” which includes the following policies (from Volume 1, Land Use
Element):
“LU-85 – While this zone should be reserved primarily for the heavier forms of
industrial activities, a wide range of industrial activities may be permitted. These
heavier forms of industrial activities may include outdoor or semi-enclosed
manufacturing, processing, or assembling activities, significant outdoor storage,
and uses involving substantial storage or processing of hazardous materials.
Heavy commercial uses that serve the needs of workers in heavy industries are
also appropriate.”
This policy expresses a desire on the part of the City to reserve appropriate areas for
heavier industrial uses that are more difficult to site due to compatibility. However, the
policy also says a wide range of uses may be permitted. Based on this policy,
“warehousing” could be considered within the realm of “…a wide range of industrial
activities…” and thus is not contrary to this policy. The exact user at this time is
unknown, however, a warehousing/distribution use is anticipated and future tenants
must meet City use regulations
“LU-86 – Parking lots must be located and designed in a manner that softens
their appearance from adjacent public roads. This is accomplished through
landscaping, pedestrian spaces, and the location of buildings on the property.
Where practicable, low-impact development techniques and landscaping should
be used to promote on site stormwater infiltration and shading of hard surfaces.
Minimum and maximum parking ratios must be established for each type of
permitted use.”
Parking areas are shown to be on all four sides of the buildings with the semi-truck
parking located along the west side of Building A and the southeastern side of the
property (See Exhibit 3). Landscaping is required (ACC Table 18.50.040(A)) and
proposed on perimeter areas of the property and between the on-site parking stalls. Per
ACC 18.57.020(C)(1)(b) any dock doors shall either not be visible from the street, or an
additional 10 ft. of landscaping abutting the street is required. A perspective view
drawing will be required along with future submittals to ensure this requirement is met,
as conditioned below.
“LU-88 – Where a heavy industrial use is located adjacent to a property with a
less intense zoning designation, the heavy industrial use bears the burden of
incorporating techniques that mitigate the visual, noise, dust, and odor impacts.”
The property to the east (Marmon Keystone, a logistics facility) is zoned as C-3, Heavy
Commercial, a less intense zoning district, however, there are not any identified impacts
to this adjacent site from the proposed warehouse.
Page 9 of 380
Staff Member: Hammar
Date: August 5, 2020
Page 8 of 13
Volume 5, the Transportation Element, of the Comprehensive Plan lists ‘C’ St. SW as
part of the truck route. ‘C’ St. SW is a direct connection to SR 18 and connects to SR
167 (via 15th Ave SW ). ‘C’ St. SW is also designated as a “Principal Arterial” per Volume
5. Volume 5 also contains the Policies for freight movement within the City. In general,
the policies listed are to ensure the Objective of facilitating freight movement through the
City while limiting adverse impacts to traffic. The following Policies are applicable to the
requested CUP:
“Freight-01 – The movement of freight and goods is recognized as an important
component of Auburn’s transportation system.”
“Freight-02 – The movement of freight and goods which serve largely national,
state, or regional needs should take place in such a way so that the impacts on
the local transportation system are minimized. These movements should take
place primarily on state highways, Interstates, or on grade-separated rail
corridors in order to minimize the local impacts.”
Having the potential warehouse located on a Principal Arterial designated road which is
also part of the City’s truck route assists in limiting impacts to lesser classifications of
public streets. ‘C’ St. SW provides direct access to SR 167 (via 15th St SW). An exact
user is not known at this time, hence, the destination of freight is also not known but can
be anticipated to likely use the state highways. Truck traffic within the City is subject to
ACC 9.90.020 ‘Truck route designation and restrictions’ which is appropriate for trips
with origins and destinations outside the city and subject to vehicle weight restrictions.
‘C’ St. SW currently contains a mixture of vehicle types and trip purposes. The arterial
street is characterized by a mixture of employee traffic to the Boeing aircraft
manufacturing plant and other industrial uses developed on its grounds. The street also
contains platoons of schools buses with the nearby school bus facility arriving and
departing to coincide with school hours. Added to this traffic stream is retail consumers
visiting the nearby retail shopping center and future indoor sports fields venue. This
consumer traffic can include a proportion of out-of-town travelers.
Volume 6, the Economic Development Element, includes information relating to the
State’s adoption in 2008 of the “streamlined sales tax” (SST) which provides sales tax
revenue to jurisdictions that have an abundance of warehousing and distribution uses to
offset the change to a destination-based sales tax system. The SST was initially not
included to be extended in the State’s budget after this year, however, has been
extended until 2021. The future fate of this funding source is unknown but has been
subject to repeated threat of expiration. Volume 6 contains the following policies relating
to warehousing:
“ED-15 – Warehouse and distribution land uses are not preferred long-term
economic development and land use priorities for industrially zoned areas of the
City, due to: the loss of sales tax revenue associated with the State’s
implementation of streamlined sales tax legislation in 2008; no substantive
contribution to an increase in per capita income for Auburn residents; no
Page 10 of 380
Staff Member: Hammar
Date: August 5, 2020
Page 9 of 13
reduction in the tax burden of Auburn residents; low employment densities, lower
property values; and land use inefficiencies.”
“ED-16 – Increasing the utilization of land for manufacturing and industrial land
uses should be the City’s preferred economic development and land use priority
for industrially zoned areas of the City that are currently dominated by warehouse
and distribution land uses. The City should promote and create incentives for
new manufacturing and light industrial uses, and for the gradual conversion of
existing warehouse and distribution land uses to manufacturing and sales tax
generating land uses.”
These policies indicate that for economic purposes, warehousing and distribution are
more of an economic burden on the City than a preferred land use.
Limited information was provided by the Applicant in regards to potential economic
impacts on the City. The information that was provided was vague and does not appear
to address the concerns raised by these Economic Development policies. The Applicant
provided the following response for this criterion:
“The proposed project is in accordance with the goals, policies and objectives of
the comprehensive plan. The new buildings will sit away from the streets and the
truck court will face each other to minimize visibility from the streets. Although
some trailer storage will be located onsite, it will be located further away from the
main road and will be screen by adjacent property’s building from the right of
way. This new building will attract new and economic forward-thinking tenants
that will diversify the economy, which in terms will have job growth. The new
building will revitalize the undeveloped site by creating modern industrial
buildings that consist of concrete tilt-up walls with reveals to create interesting
lines and storefront office nodes that will create an inviting look at the building
corners.”
Staff finds that the project is both consistent with, and not consistent with, this criterion.
C. The proposal complies with all requirements of this title;
Staff Analysis: The project, as proposed, will meet development standards relating to
setbacks, height, landscaping, and parking consistent with the requirements for a
warehouse within the M-2 zone.
The Applicant provided the following response for this criterion:
“The proposed project complies with all requirements of this title for the
conditional use permit.”
If this request for a CUP is granted, the project will require subsequent applications to
the City; through review and approval of these applications, the City can ensure
consistency with requirements of Title 18 ACC ‘Zoning’. One of the applications will be a
boundary line elimination to combine parcels and avoid property lines through buildings.
Page 11 of 380
Staff Member: Hammar
Date: August 5, 2020
Page 10 of 13
If this request for a CUP is granted, the project will be consistent with Title 18 ACC
‘Zoning’ and thus this criterion.
D. The proposal can be constructed and maintained so as to be harmonious and
appropriate in design, character, and appearance with the existing or intended character
of the general vicinity;
Staff Analysis: The proposed site / landscaping plans and building elevations are
included as Exhibit 3. As proposed, the project appears to not be physically out of
character with other uses and properties in the general vicinity. As noted in the table
above under ‘Findings of Fact’ No. 4, the surroundings have a wide variety of uses from
warehouse and logistics related uses to the City’s Maintenance & Operations facility.
Other uses in the vicinity have an even wider range from baseball fields and the Outlet
Collection shopping center to warehouses and wholesalers.
The intent of the M-2 zone is included as ‘Findings of Fact’ No. 9, above. In general the
proposed warehouse use appears to meet the intent of the M-2 zone as it would be
included within the term “industrial uses” and would not interrupt other nearby industrial
uses or the traffic associated with industrial uses as the site is located on a City-
identified truck route.
The Applicant provided the following response for this criterion:
“The proposed project can be constructed and maintained to be harmonious and
appropriate in design, character, and appearance with the general vicinity. The design is
parallel to similar newer industrial building around the vicinity and will harmonize the
industrial area.”
Staff finds the request meets this criterion.
E. The proposal will be supported by adequate public facilities and services and will not
adversely affect the public infrastructure;
Staff Analysis: Adequate public facilities are available or will be made available for the
project including water, sewer, storm, and other utilities. Also, and as discussed above,
the site is located on a truck route and therefore should not adversely affect public roads
or traffic circulation.
The Applicant provided the following response for this criterion:
“The proposed project will be supported by adequate public facilities and services and
will not adversely affect the public infrastructure. The existing accessible public sidewalk
on 8th Street SW will lead to the existing public right away on C Street SW, which will
have access to public transit at the corner of 8th Street SW and C Street SW.”
Staff finds the request meets this criterion.
F. The proposal will not cause or create a public nuisance;
Page 12 of 380
Staff Member: Hammar
Date: August 5, 2020
Page 11 of 13
Staff Analysis: No impacts relating to air and water pollution, noise, vibration, glare or
odor are anticipated and the future use(s) will be required to comply with all applicable
City codes, including ACC 18.31.180 ‘Performance Standards’ and Chapter 8.12 ACC
‘Public Nuisances’.
The Applicant provided the following response for this criterion:
“The proposed project has harmonious design and appearance similar to the adjacent
buildings and will not cause or create a public nuisance.”
Staff finds the request meets this criterion.
G. The proposal’s impacts can be appropriately mitigated through the application of
conditions of approval, as applicable.
Staff Analysis: Other than minor landscaping conditions to ensure the site is properly
vegetated and screened, no other conditions are proposed. Conditions to satisfy the
economic impacts to the City are not likely defensibly quantifiable. The Applicant has not
provided any proposal to offset the economic impacts.
The Applicant provided the following response for this criterion:
“If the review of proposed project is found impactful in any way, it is understood that it
can be appropriately mitigated through the application’s condition of approval.”
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The site plan that was formally submitted with the Conditional Use Permit Application is
hereby incorporated into the decision. Any modifications to the site plan shall meet the
following requirements of Chapter 18.64 ACC
Minor Adjustments. Minor adjustments to the site plan may be made and
approved by the planning director or designee. Minor adjustments are those
which may affect the precise dimensions or siting of buildings, but which do not
affect the basic character or arrangement of buildings approved, nor the
development coverage of the development or the open space requirements.
Such dimensional adjustments shall not vary more than 10 percent from the
original.
Major Adjustments. Major adjustments are those, when determined by the
planning director or designee that substantially change the basic design,
coverage, open space or other requirements of the permit. When the planning
director or designee determines a change constitutes a major adjustment, no
building or other permit shall be issued for the use without prior review and
approval such adjustment.
The submittal requirements, and review and approval process for a major
adjustment to the site plan of an approved administrative or conditional use
Page 13 of 380
Staff Member: Hammar
Date: August 5, 2020
Page 12 of 13
permit shall be substantially the same as that required for the original
administrative or conditional use permit. An application for major adjustment
meeting the information requirements of ACC 18.64.030 shall be submitted. At
the discretion of the planning director or designee, the applicant may be able to
resubmit or incorporate by reference some portions of the original administrative
or conditional use permit submittal as part of the application for major
adjustment; however, the application for major adjustment shall be subject to the
same submittal, processing, and findings of fact requirements of this chapter for
administrative or conditional use permits, as applicable.
2. All above ground utility facilities shall be visually screened with landscaping that provides
year-round screening from the public way, including the Interurban Trail. The
landscaping plans shall propose an approach that can be implemented where above
ground utility features cannot be predicted in advance.
3. A perspective-view drawing shall be submitted showing the view from the right-of-way to
the location of the dock doors on the building. This drawing will be used to ensure the
project meets ACC 18.57.020(C)(1)(b).
Page 14 of 380
Staff Member: Hammar
Date: August 5, 2020
Page 13 of 13
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1. Staff Report
Exhibit 2. Vicinity Map on 2015 aerial photograph
Exhibit 3. Site, Landscaping, and Elevation Plans, prepared by Nelson, 6/15/2020
Exhibit 4. Applicant’s Written Statement for CUP Criteria, prepared by Nelson 6/15/2020.
Exhibit 5. Completed Land Use Application Forms
Exhibit 6. Notice of Public Hearing (NOH) 8/4/2020
Exhibit 7. LogistiCenter at Auburn, Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by TENW, 11/25/2019
Exhibit 8. Habitat Assessment, prepared by Soundview Consultants LLC, 7/7/2020
Exhibit 9. Notice of Application (NOA), Notice of Public Hearing (NOH), and SEPA DNS 2/4/2020
Exhibit 10. Original Conditional Use approval, 2/26/2020
Page 15 of 380
666.7
NAD_1983_StatePlane_Washington_North_FIPS_4601_Feet
Feet666.7333.30
1:4,0001in =333 ft
2/3/2020Printed Date:
Map Created by City of Auburn eGIS
Imagery Date: May 2015
Information shown is for general reference
purposes only and does not necessarily
represent exact geographic or cartographic
data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes no
warranty as to its accuracy. Page 16 of 380
Page 17 of 380
Page 18 of 380
Page 19 of 380
Page 20 of 380
Page 21 of 380
Page 22 of 380
Nelco Architecture, Inc.Phone:Suite 1300Seattle, WA 98101(206) 408-85001200 Fifth Ave.WWW.NELSONWORLDWIDE.COM LANDSCAPEWBLA, INC.16630 30TH DRIVE SEBOTHELL, WA 98012T: 425.417.4609E-mail:CORKY_B@COMCAST.NETProj. No:Reviewed By:SEAL:CITY STAMP:DERMODY PROPERTIESPA/PM SEGALE901 C STREETAUBURN, WA 9800119.0002758.000 CLIENT:PROJECT:11900 NE 1ST STREET, SUITE 300BELLEVUE, WAS 98005L-1BLDG. ALANDSCAPEPLANLANDSCAPE PLANSCALE: 1" = 30' - 0"Page 23 of 380
Nelco Architecture, Inc.Phone:Suite 1300Seattle, WA 98101(206) 408-85001200 Fifth Ave.WWW.NELSONWORLDWIDE.COM LANDSCAPEWBLA, INC.16630 30TH DRIVE SEBOTHELL, WA 98012T: 425.417.4609E-mail:CORKY_B@COMCAST.NETProj. No:Reviewed By:SEAL:CITY STAMP:DERMODY PROPERTIESPA/PM SEGALE901 C STREETAUBURN, WA 9800119.0002758.000 CLIENT:PROJECT:11900 NE 1ST STREET, SUITE 300BELLEVUE, WAS 98005L-2BLDG. ALANDSCAPEPLANLANDSCAPE PLANSCALE: 1" = 30' - 0"Page 24 of 380
Nelco Architecture, Inc.Phone:Suite 1300Seattle, WA 98101(206) 408-85001200 Fifth Ave.WWW.NELSONWORLDWIDE.COM LANDSCAPEWBLA, INC.16630 30TH DRIVE SEBOTHELL, WA 98012T: 425.417.4609E-mail:CORKY_B@COMCAST.NETProj. No:Reviewed By:SEAL:CITY STAMP:DERMODY PROPERTIESPA/PM SEGALE901 C STREETAUBURN, WA 9800119.0002758.000 CLIENT:PROJECT:11900 NE 1ST STREET, SUITE 300BELLEVUE, WAS 98005L-3BLDG. BLANDSCAPEPLANLANDSCAPE PLANSCALE: 1" = 30' - 0"Page 25 of 380
Nelco Architecture, Inc.Phone:Suite 1300Seattle, WA 98101(206) 408-85001200 Fifth Ave.WWW.NELSONWORLDWIDE.COM LANDSCAPEWBLA, INC.16630 30TH DRIVE SEBOTHELL, WA 98012T: 425.417.4609E-mail:CORKY_B@COMCAST.NETProj. No:Reviewed By:SEAL:CITY STAMP:DERMODY PROPERTIESPA/PM SEGALE901 C STREETAUBURN, WA 9800119.0002758.000 CLIENT:PROJECT:11900 NE 1ST STREET, SUITE 300BELLEVUE, WAS 98005L-4BLDG. BLANDSCAPEPLANSCALE: 1" = 30' - 0"LANDSCAPE PLANPage 26 of 380
L-5LANDSCAPEDETAILSNelco Architecture, Inc.Phone:Suite 1300Seattle, WA 98101(206) 408-85001200 Fifth Ave.WWW.NELSONWORLDWIDE.COM LANDSCAPEWBLA, INC.16630 30TH DRIVE SEBOTHELL, WA 98012T: 425.417.4609E-mail:CORKY_B@COMCAST.NETProj. No:Reviewed By:SEAL:CITY STAMP:DERMODY PROPERTIESPA/PM SEGALE901 C STREETAUBURN, WA 9800119.0002758.000 CLIENT:PROJECT:11900 NE 1ST STREET, SUITE 300BELLEVUE, WAS 98005Page 27 of 380
Interior Design
Architecture
Branding
Workplace Services
Consulting Services
NELSON
1200 Fifth Avenue # 1300
Seattle, WA 98101
206.408.8500
NELSONonline.com
June 15, 2020
Application No. PRE19-0040
Conditional Use Permit Written Statement and Finding of Fact:
The site is approximately 815,443 sf (18.72 acres to be confirmed by survey). The site is currently un-
developed.
Dermody Properties plans to redevelop the site by constructing two buildings. Building A (approx. size 80,800
sf), and Building B (approx. size 158,100 sf) with associated loading/truck yard, parking, landscaping, and
storm water detention similar to the attached site plan.
Project Description:
The existing site has two ingress/egress points. One is in the northeast corner of the site off of 8th Street SW,
the other is located in the southeast corner of the site off of C Street SW. The site is isolated and there is no
direct street frontage except for the ingress/egress points. The site is bounded by railroad tracks and the
Interurban Trail on the west, by an Industrial service center on the east, by an industrial warehouse facility to
the north, and by an industrial site to the south that is currently being developed for industrial warehouse
facility.
The proposed buildings are approximately 80,800 sf, and 158,100 sf, with a rectangular footprint oriented in
the east/west direction and each with its own truck court. The buildings will be one story, Type III-B
construction, fully sprinklered. While the tenant(s) are not identified at this time, industry norms are generally
93% warehouse and 7% associated office space. The building height will be based upon tenant needs,
approximately 38’ to 40’, at most 45’ per the M-2 zoning height allowed. Interior racking and mezzanines will
be provided to meet tenant requirements.
The north side of Building A has a truck court with approximately 25 truck loading bays facing north. The south
side of Building B has a truck yard with approximately 19 loading bays facing south. Parking is located around
the remaining sides of the building. Storm water detention and management is provided to the west of building
B. We are showing approximately 3.2% of the site area to be confirmed. There is an existing wetland to the
west of building A. Any additional detention requirements would be handled in an underground vault.
Finding of Fact:
A. The use will not have substantively greater adverse effect on the health, safety or comfort of persons
living or working in the area. The use for this site will maintain the same use. The site is isolated and
there is no direct street frontage except for the ingress/egress points. The site is bounded by railroad
tracks and the Interurban Trail on the west, by an Industrial service center on the east, by an industrial
warehouse facility to the north, and by an industrial site currently being developed to the south. Since
the site is undeveloped, this development will bring jobs to this area and better the economy.
B. The proposed project is in accordance with the goals, policies and objectives of the comprehensive
plan. The new buildings will sit away from the streets. Although some trailer storage will be located
onsite, it will be located further away from the main road and will be screen by adjacent property’s
building from the right of way. This new building will attract new and economic forward-thinking
Page 28 of 380
Interior Design
Architecture
Branding
Workplace Services
Consulting Services
NELSON
1200 Fifth Avenue # 1300
Seattle, WA 98101
206.408.8500
NELSONonline.com
tenants that will diversify the economy, which in terms will have job growth. The new building will
revitalize the undeveloped site by creating modern industrial buildings that consist of concrete tilt-up
walls with reveals to create interesting lines and storefront office nodes that will create an inviting look
at the building corners.
C. The proposed project complies with all requirements of this title for the conditional use permit.
D. The proposed project can be constructed and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in design,
character, and appearance with the general vicinity. The design is parallel to similar newer industrial
building around the vicinity and will harmonize the industrial area.
E. The proposed project will be supported by adequate public facilities and services and will not
adversely affect the public infrastructure. The existing accessible public sidewalk on 8th Street SW will
lead to the existing public right away on C Street SW, which will have access to public transit at the
corner of 8th Street SW and C Street SW.
F. The proposed project has harmonious design and appearance similar to the adjacent buildings and
will not cause or create a public nuisance.
G. If the review of proposed project is found impactful in any way, it is understood that it can be
appropriately mitigated through the application’s condition of approval.
Page 29 of 380
Page 30 of 380
Page 31 of 380
4
CITY OF AUBURN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Planning & Development Department APPLICATION
Auburn City Hall Annex, 2nd Floor
1 East Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001
Tel: 253.931.3090
Fax: 253.804.3114
permitcenter@auburnwa.gov
www.auburnwa.gov
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION – CONCURRENT
APPLICATIONS
Please indicate whether you are submitting one or more concurrent applications with this application by checking one or more
of the boxes below:
Type I Applications
(administrative decisions
made by the City which are not
subject to environmental
review under the State
Environmental Policy Act
[SEPA]):
Administrative Use Permit
Boundary Line Adjustment
Boundary Line Elimination
Building Permit
Excavation Permit
Floodplain Development
Permit
Grading Permit
Home Occupation Permit
Land Clearing Permit
Mechanical Permit
Plumbing Permit
Public Facility Extension
Agreement
Right-of-way Use Permit
Short Subdivision
Special Permit
Temporary Use Permit
(administrative)
Utility Permit
Type II Applications
(administrative decisions
made by the City which
include threshold
determinations under
SEPA):
Administrative Use
Permit
Building Permit
Floodplain
Development Permit
Grading Permit
Land Clearing Permit
Public Facility
Extension Agreement
Short Subdivision
Type III Applications
(quasi-judicial final
decisions made by the
hearing examiner
following a
recommendation by
staff):
Conditional Use Permit
Preliminary Plat
Special Exceptions
Special Home
Occupation Permit
Substantial Shoreline
Development
Permit
Surface Mining Permit
Temporary Use Permit
Variance
Type IV Applications (quasi-
judicial decisions made by the
City Council following a
recommendation by the
hearing examiner):
Rezone (site-specific)
OTHER - as may apply:
__________________
__________________
Page 32 of 380
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (NOH)
Logisticenter at Auburn
The City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Public Hearing (NOH) for the following described project.
The permit applications and listed studies may be reviewed at the Auburn Department of Community
Development at 1 E Main St., 2nd Floor, Customer Service Center, Auburn, WA 98001.
Proposal: Revision of a previously authorized Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for 2 warehouses on a
site within the M-2, Heavy Industrial zoning district. The sizes of the proposed buildings are being
reduced from 157,400 to 80,800 sq. ft. and 172,500to 158,100 sq. ft. in size.
Location: 901 C st., see Vicinity Map below. King Co. Parcel No. 242104-9001 and 242104-9054.
Notice of Public Hearing: August 4, 2020
Notice of Application: January 30, 2020
Application Complete: January 21, 2020
Permit Application: October 18, 2019
File Nos. CUP19-0003
Owner: Auburn 8th Street LLC
PO Box 88028
Tukwila, WA 98138
Applicant: Dermody Properties
11900 NE 1st Street Suite 300
Bellevue, WA 98005
Applicant’s
Representative: Howard Jeng
Nelson Worldwide
1200 5th Ave Suite 1300
Seattle, WA 98101
Studies/Plans Submitted With Application:
Preliminary Civil Plans (1/17/2020)
Geotechnical Report (1/17/2020)
Traffic Impact Analysis (1/17/2020)
Preliminary Site Plan (6/17/2020)
Other Permits, Plans, and Approvals Needed:
Building and Civil Permits
Statement of Consistency and List of Applicable Development Regulations: This proposal is
subject to and shall be consistent with the Auburn City Code, Comprehensive Plan, and Public
Works Design and Construction Standards.
Lead Agency: City of Auburn
Page 33 of 380
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CUP19-0003 (Continued)
Page 2 of 3
Public Comment Period: All persons may comment on this application. Comments must be in
writing and received by the end of the comment period at 5:00 p.m. on August 19, 2020 to the
mailing address of 25 W Main ST, Auburn, WA, 98001-4998. Any person wishing to become a party
of record, shall include in their comments that they wish to receive notice of and participate in any
hearings, if relevant, request a copy of decisions once made, and be made aware of appeal rights.
Public Hearing: The Hearing Examiner will conduct a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit,
on August 19, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. The public hearing will be held virtually and telephonically.
To attend the meeting virtually please enter the meeting ID into the ZOOM app or call into the
meeting at the phone number listed below. Per the Governor’s Emergency Proclamation 20-
28, the City of Auburn is prohibited from holding an in-person meeting at this time.
Join the ZOOM meeting at the following web address: https://zoom.us/j/95658282714.
Meeting ID: 956 5828 2714, or via one tap mobile: + 12532158782, 95658282714# US (Tacoma).
Dial by your location: +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) or 877 853 5257
US Toll-free or 888 475 4499
US Toll-free; Meeting ID: 956 5828 2714. Find your local number:
https://zoom.us/u/ab305berzW .
Written comments may be emailed to the contact person below, mailed attention to the contact
person below to 25 W Main St., Auburn WA, 98001, or submitted at the public hearing by email. For
citizens with speech, sight, or hearing disabilities wishing to review documents pertaining to this
hearing should contact the person below within 10 calendar days prior to the hearing. Each request
will be considered individually according to the type of request, the availabilit y of resources, and the
financial ability of the City to provide the requested services or equipment . For questions regarding
this project, please contact Jeremy Hammar, Planner, at planning@auburnwa.gov or 253-288-4301.
Page 34 of 380
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CUP19-0003 (Continued)
Page 3 of 3
Vicinity Map
PROJECT SITE
15th ST SW
C St SW
Page 35 of 380
LogistiCenter at Auburn
Traffic Impact Analysis
November 25, 2019
Prepared for:
Dermody Properties
11900 NE 1st Street, Suite 300
Bellevue, WA 98005
Prepared by:
TENW
Transportation Engineering NorthWest
11400 SE 8th Street, Suite 200
Bellevue, WA 98004
Office: (425) 889-6747
Fax: (425) 889-8369
Page 36 of 380
Traffic Impact Analysis
LogistiCenter at Auburn
TENW November 25, 2019
Page i
Table of Contents
FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 2
Project Description ..................................................................................................... 2
Project Approach ...................................................................................................... 2
Primary Data and Information Sources ........................................................................... 2
EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................. 5
Roadway Network .................................................................................................... 5
Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................... 5
Level of Service ......................................................................................................... 7
Collision History ........................................................................................................ 7
FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AND PROJECT IMPACTS ................................................ 9
Planned Transportation Improvements ............................................................................ 9
Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................... 9
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ......................................................................... 9
Future Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................... 13
Future Level of Service .............................................................................................. 16
Site Access Analysis ................................................................................................. 17
MITIGATION .......................................................................................................... 18
Appendices
Appendix A – Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts
Appendix B – Level of Service (LOS) Calculations
Appendix C – Trip Generation Calculations
Page 37 of 380
Traffic Impact Analysis
LogistiCenter at Auburn
TENW November 25, 2019
Page ii
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1 Project Site Vicinity ....................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2 Preliminary Site Plan ..................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3 2019 Existing Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................................... 6
Figure 4 Project Trip Distribution ................................................................................................ 11
Figure 5 Peak Hour Project Trip Assignment................................................................................. 12
Figure 6 2021 Without Project Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .............................................. 14
Figure 7 2021 With Project Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................. 15
Table 1 Existing Roadway Network Summary – Project Site Vicinity .................................................. 5
Table 2 2019 Existing AM and PM Peak Hour LOS Summary ......................................................... 7
Table 3 Collision Data Summary, January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018 ...................................... 8
Table 4 Collision Data Summary By Type, January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018 .......................... 8
Table 5 Project Trip Generation Summary .................................................................................... 9
Table 6 Project Trip Distribution.................................................................................................. 9
Table 7 Year 2021 Peak Hour LOS Summary ............................................................................ 16
Table 8 Year 2021 Peak Hour Level of Service Summary at Site Access Locations ............................ 17
Page 38 of 380
Traffic Impact Analysis
LogistiCenter at Auburn
TENW November 25, 2019
Page 1
FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS
This traffic impact analysis (TIA) has been prepared for the proposed LogistiCenter at Auburn
warehouse project located south of 8th Street SW between the C Street SW and the Union Pacific
railroad tracks in Auburn, WA.
Project Proposal. Current plans for the project include the development of approximately 330,000
square feet (SF) of warehouse building area. The existing site is currently vacant. Access to the site
would be provided by a full access driveway on 8th Street SW and a right-in/right-out driveway on
C Street SW. Full buildout of the project is estimated to occur in 2021.
Trip Generation. The proposed warehouse project is estimated to generate 567 weekday daily
trips, with 65 trips occurring during the weekday AM peak hour (50 entering, 15 exiting), and 67
trips occurring during the weekday PM peak hour (18 entering, 49 exiting).
Future Year LOS. LOS analyses were conducted for future year 2021 conditions at three off-site
study intersections along C Street SW during the weekday AM and PM peak hour. Based on the
analysis results, all off-site study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS C or better during both
the weekday AM and PM peak hours in 2021 without or with the proposed project.
Mitigation. The payment of transportation impact fees will mitigate project-related transportation
impacts. Transportation impact fees will be determined by the City of Auburn and will need to be
paid at the time of a building permit issuance. As of the date of this study, the adopted City of Auburn
2019 impact fee schedule identifies a non-downtown fee of $2.65 per square foot for the
warehousing land use.
Page 39 of 380
Traffic Impact Analysis
LogistiCenter at Auburn
TENW November 25, 2019
Page 3
Figure 1 Project Site Vicinity
Page 40 of 380
Traffic Impact Analysis
LogistiCenter at Auburn
TENW November 25, 2019
Page 4
Figure 2 Preliminary Site Plan
Page 41 of 380
Traffic Impact Analysis
LogistiCenter at Auburn
TENW November 25, 2019
Page 5
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Roadway Network
Table 1 describes the existing characteristics of the streets that would be used as primary routes to
and from the site. Roadway characteristics are described in terms of orientation, arterial
classification, posted speed limits, number of lanes, street parking, pedestrian facilities, and bicycle
facilities. The relationship of these roadways to the project site is shown in Figure 1.
Table 1
Existing Roadway Network Summary – Project Site Vicinity
Roadway Orientation Classification
Speed
Limit
Number
of Travel
Lanes
Street
Parking Sidewalks
Bicycle
Facilities
8th Street SW E/W Local Non-
residential 25 2 Yes Both Sides None
C Street SW N/S Principal
Arterial 40 4 None West Side
Only
Non-
motorized
trail on
west side
to the
south of
15th St SW
Existing Traffic Volumes
Existing weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the three study intersections were based
on counts collected by All Traffic Data in September 2019. Figure 3 illustrates the 2019 existing
weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections. The detailed peak hour
turning movement count sheets are provided in Appendix A.
Page 42 of 380
Traffic Impact Analysis
LogistiCenter at Auburn
TENW November 25, 2019
Page 7
Level of Service
Weekday AM and PM peak hour level of service (LOS) analyses at the study intersections were
conducted at the following three signalized study intersections:
1. C Street SW / WB SR-18 Ramps
2. C Street SW / EB SR-18 Ramps
3. C Street SW / 8th Street SW
The LOS analyses were conducted using the methodologies and procedures outlined in the latest
edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition). LOS serves as an indicator of the quality of
traffic flow and degree of congestion at an intersection or roadway segment. It is a measure of
vehicle operating speed, travel time, travel delays, and driving comfort. The LOS methodology is
described in Appendix B. The Synchro Version 10 software package was used to determine LOS.
Existing signal timing used in the analysis was provided by the City of Auburn and WSDOT.
The 2019 existing AM and PM peak hour LOS analysis results for the study intersections are
summarized in Table 2. The 2019 existing LOS worksheets are included in Appendix B.
Table 2
2019 Existing AM and PM Peak Hour LOS Summary
Adopted LOS
Standard 3
2019 Existing Conditions
Study Intersection / Movement LOS 1
Delay
(sec) 2
AM Peak Hour
1. C Street SW / WB SR-18 Ramps D B 13.9
2. C Street SW / EB SR-18 Ramps D B 15.9
3. C Street SW / 8th Street SW D A 5.5
PM Peak Hour
1. C Street SW / WB SR-18 Ramps D C 24.0
2. C Street SW / EB SR-18 Ramps D C 26.7
3. C Street SW / 8th Street SW D A 5.7
1. LOS = Level of Service
2. Delay refers to average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
3. Per City of Auburn Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
As shown in Table 2, all study intersections currently operate at LOS C or better during both the
weekday AM and PM peak hours.
Collision History
Historic collisions at the study intersections were analyzed for the three-year period from 2016 to
2018. Collision data was provided by the City of Auburn. Summaries of the total and yearly
average collisions during this period are provided in Table 3. Summaries of collisions by type over
the three-year period are provided in Table 4.
Page 43 of 380
Traffic Impact Analysis
LogistiCenter at Auburn
TENW November 25, 2019
Page 8
Table 3
Collision Data Summary, January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018
Intersection 2016 2017 2018
Three-Year
Total
Collisions
Average
Annual
Collisions
C St SW / SR 18 WB Ramps 2 3 1 6 2.00
C St SW / SR 18 EB Ramp 2 3 4 9 3.00
C St SW / 8th St SW 5 7 4 16 5.33
Sources: City of Auburn Collision Records.
Table 4
Collision Data Summary By Type, January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018
Collision Type
Location
3-Year
Total
Collisions
Average
Annual
Collision
Rate Approach Turn Sideswipe Right Angle Rear-end Parked Veh / Fixed Ped / Cycle Other C St SW / SR 18 Westbound Ramps 6 2.00 1 2 0 2 1 0 0
C St SW / SR 18 Eastbound Ramps 9 3.00 0 2 2 4 1 0 0
C St SW / 8th St SW 16 5.33 0 7 1 5 2 0 1
Source: City of Auburn Collision Records.
The City of Auburn collects and reviews collision data to identify intersection and road locations
where potential hazards exist. Potential safety problems are identified using the Safety Priority Index
System (SPIS) methodology. The SPIS score for a location considers three years of data and considers
frequency, collision rate, and severity. Based on CityÊs 2016-2018 SPIS, there were 97 intersections
included and the SPIS scores ranged from 31.32 to 94.88 with a Citywide average of 51.71.
One of the study intersections (C St SW / SR 18 Eastbound Ramps) is included on the SPIS list with
a SPIS Value of 31.32.
Page 44 of 380
Traffic Impact Analysis
LogistiCenter at Auburn
TENW November 25, 2019
Page 9
FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AND PROJECT IMPACTS
Planned Transportation Improvements
This section documents the known transportation improvements planned by the City in the study area.
No planned transportation improvement projects identified in the City of AuburnÊs adopted 2020-
2025 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) add capacity within the study area or occur within
the analysis horizon for this study.
Project Trip Generation
The trip generation estimate for the proposed 330,000 SF warehouse project was based on the
methodology included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th
edition for Land Use Code (LUC) 150 (Warehousing).
Table 5 summarizes the resulting weekday daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation
estimates for proposed project. Detailed trip generation calculations are included in Appendix C.
Table 5
Project Trip Generation Summary
Passenger Vehicle Trips Truck Trips Total Trip Generation
Time Period In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Daily 227 227 454 57 56 113 284 283 567
AM Peak Hour 40 12 52 10 3 13 50 15 65
PM Peak Hour 14 40 54 4 9 13 18 49 67
As shown in Table 5, the proposed project is estimated to generate 567 weekday daily trips, with
65 trips occurring during the weekday AM peak hour (50 entering, 15 exiting), and 67 trips
occurring during the weekday PM peak hour (18 entering, 49 exiting).
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
The distribution of the new project trips generated by the Warehouse project was based on
anticipated travel patterns in the study area and coordination with City of Auburn staff as part of the
Traffic Scoping for the project. The following Table 6 summarizes the resulting general trip distribution
patterns. The distribution of project trips is shown graphically in Figure 4.
Table 6
Project Trip Distribution
Route (Direction) Trip Distribution
SR 167 (north) 25%
SR 167 (south) 20%
Highway 18 (west) 25%
Highway 18 (east) 20%
C Street SW (north) 10%
TOTAL 100%
Page 45 of 380
Traffic Impact Analysis
LogistiCenter at Auburn
TENW November 25, 2019
Page 11
Figure 4 Project Trip Distribution
Page 46 of 380
Traffic Impact Analysis
LogistiCenter at Auburn
TENW November 25, 2019
Page 12
Figure 5 Peak Hour Project Trip Assignment
Page 47 of 380
Traffic Impact Analysis
LogistiCenter at Auburn
TENW November 25, 2019
Page 13
Future Traffic Volumes
Future year 2021 Without-Project peak hour traffic volumes were estimated by applying a 2 percent
annual background growth rate to the existing traffic volumes. The 2 percent annual growth rate
was determined to be appropriate based on conversations with the City during the Traffic Scoping
process.
In addition to the background growth rate, traffic from the following pipeline projects were included
in the future without-project peak hour traffic volume estimates:
· Holliday Inn on C Street SW
· Supervalue Warehouse on 15th Street SW
· Sound Transit Parking Garage
The resulting future 2021 without-project weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown
in Figure 6.
The 2021 With-Project traffic volumes were determined by adding the trip assignment from the
proposed development (shown in Figure 5) to the future 2021 Without-Project traffic volumes. The
resulting future 2021 With-Project weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the study
intersections are shown in Figure 7.
Page 48 of 380
Traffic Impact Analysis
LogistiCenter at Auburn
TENW November 25, 2019
Page 14
Figure 6 2021 Without Project Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Page 49 of 380
Traffic Impact Analysis
LogistiCenter at Auburn
TENW November 25, 2019
Page 15
Figure 7 2021 With Project Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Page 50 of 380
Traffic Impact Analysis
LogistiCenter at Auburn
TENW November 25, 2019
Page 16
Future Level of Service
Future year 2021 Level of Service (LOS) analyses were conducted at the three study intersections for
weekday AM and PM peak hour without-project and with-project conditions. Existing intersection
geometry and signal timing was assumed at the study intersections as there are no City-planned
improvements that are expected to be complete by 2021.
The 2021 weekday AM and PM peak hour LOS results at the study intersections without and with
the proposed project are summarized in Table 7. The detailed LOS worksheets are included in
Appendix B.
As shown in Table 7 the study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS C or better during both
the weekday AM and PM peak hours in 2021 without or with the proposed project.
Table 7
Year 2021 Peak Hour LOS Summary
Adopted LOS
Standard 3
2021 Without
Project
2021 With
Project
Study Intersection / Movement LOS 1
Delay
(sec) 2 LOS 1
Delay
(sec) 2
AM Peak Hour
1. C Street SW / WB SR-18 Ramps D B 14.1 B 14.2
2. C Street SW / EB SR-18 Ramps D B 15.9 B 16.1
3. C Street SW / 8th Street SW D A 6.4 A 6.9
PM Peak Hour
1. C Street SW / WB SR-18 Ramps D C 26.0 C 26.4
2. C Street SW / EB SR-18 Ramps D C 29.1 C 30.0
3. C Street SW / 8th Street SW D A 7.1 A 8.0
1. LOS = Level of Service
2. Delay refers to average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
3. Per City of Auburn Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
Page 51 of 380
Traffic Impact Analysis
LogistiCenter at Auburn
TENW November 25, 2019
Page 17
Site Access Analysis
Level of service analyses were conducted at the proposed site accesses on 8th St SW and C Street
SW for 2021 With-Project traffic conditions in the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The proposed
site access on C St SW was assumed to be restricted to allow only right-in and right-out turn
movements. The LOS analyses were conducted based on the methodology and procedures outlined
in the 6th Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) using the Synchro 10.3 software program.
The 2021 With Project AM and PM peak hour volumes at the site access location used in the LOS
analyses are shown in Figure 7.
The weekday AM and PM peak hour LOS results at the site access location for 2021 With-Project
conditions are summarized in Table 8. The LOS worksheets are included in Appendix B.
Table 8
Year 2021 Peak Hour Level of Service Summary at Site Access Locations
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Driveway Location and Movement LOS 1
Delay
(sec) 2 V/C3 LOS 1
Delay
(sec) 2 V/C3
A. Proposed Site Access / 8th Street SW
Northbound Shared Left-Thru-Right A 8.7 0.04 A 8.7 0.05
Eastbound Left Turn A 0 - A 0 -
Westbound Left Turn A 7.5 0.04 A 7.5 0.02
Southbound Shared Left-Thru-Right B 10.2 0.02 A 9.4 0.01
B. Proposed Site Access / C Street SW
Eastbound Right Turn B 11.0 0.02 B 14.3 0.05
1. LOS = Level of Service
2. Delay refers to average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
3. V/C = Volume/capacity ratio.
As shown in Table 8, the results of the LOS analyses show that the exiting stop controlled right-turn
movement at the proposed site access is anticipated to operate at LOS B during the weekday AM
and PM peak hours.
Page 52 of 380
Traffic Impact Analysis
LogistiCenter at Auburn
TENW November 25, 2019
Page 18
MITIGATION
Payment of the City of Auburn transportation impact fee will mitigate project-related transportation
impacts of the proposed 330,000 sf warehouse. Transportation impact fees will need to be paid
at the time of a building permit issuance. As of the date of this study, the adopted City of Auburn
2019 impact fee schedule identifies a non-downtown fee of $2.65 per square foot for the
warehousing land use.
Page 53 of 380
Traffic Impact Analysis
LogistiCenter at Auburn
Appendix A
Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts
Page 54 of 380
Peak Hour:07:00 AM - 08:00 AM
C ST SW C ST SW3RD STSR18 RAMPS
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location:1 C ST SW & 3RD ST AM
Tuesday, September 24, 2019Date:
All Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Traffic Counts - All Vehicles
Heavy Vehicles
Peak Hour
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk101120
4
8
206
6
81
259 802
12
18
1,068370
294
443 N
S
EW
0
1 155337720101SR18 RAMPS
3RD STC ST SWC ST SW1,633
1
000N
S
EW 0000
0 1
00Interval
Start Time RightLeft Thru Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
HourRightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn
7:00 AM 1,6330 23 3 0 4 1 1 89 184 0 1 28 406480222
7:15 AM 1,5920 19 2 0 1 3 0 92 166 1 0 35 412560433
7:30 AM 1,4991 18 0 0 0 0 0 95 187 0 1 36 403440021
7:45 AM 1,4080 21 1 0 3 0 0 61 183 0 0 56 412580425
8:00 AM 1,2900 18 2 0 0 0 0 83 151 0 0 49 365400220
8:15 AM 0 17 0 0 1 0 0 81 122 0 0 47 319350115
8:30 AM 0 18 0 0 0 0 1 85 105 0 0 37 312390126
8:45 AM 0 10 0 0 0 0 1 65 108 0 0 47 294340326
Count Total 1 144 8 0 9 4 3 651 1,206 1 2 335 2,923354017188
Peak Hour 1 81 6 0 8 4 1 337 720 1 2 155 1,633206010101
HV% PHF
0.92
0.60
0.95
0.80
6.5%
0.0%
5.0%
18.5%
7.3% 0.99
EB
WB
NB
SB
All 24000
0
0
13
0
6
48 35
0
0
5337
19
48 N
S
EW
0
0 24242900Heavy VehiclesInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
7:00 AM 3 23 0 8 34
7:15 AM 6 12 0 21 39
7:30 AM 5 13 0 8 26
7:45 AM 5 5 0 11 21
8:00 AM 6 22 0 11 39
8:15 AM 6 18 0 10 34
8:30 AM 12 23 0 13 48
8:45 AM 5 10 0 11 26
Count Total 48 126 0 93 267
Peak Hour 19 53 0 48 120
Pedestrians/Bicycles on CrosswalkInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 1 1
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 1 1
Peak Hour 0 0 0 1 1
Page 55 of 380
Peak Hour:07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
C ST SW C ST SW EB SR18 RAMP
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location:5 C ST SW & EB SR18 RAMP AM
Tuesday, September 10, 2019Date:
All Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Traffic Counts - All Vehicles
Heavy Vehicles
Peak Hour
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk2600144
0
426
453 1,305
960571
570
107 N
S
EW
0 4278187900EB SR18 RAMP
C ST SWC ST SW1,983
0
40N
S
EW
04
0 0
00Interval
Start Time RightLeft Thru Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
HourRightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn
7:00 AM 1,9620 103 0 0 24 223 0 0 87 4682902
7:15 AM 1,9830 115 0 0 12 236 0 0 88 4913109
7:30 AM 1,9120 109 0 0 19 197 0 0 94 4634004
7:45 AM 1,8690 101 0 0 27 244 0 0 124 5403707
8:00 AM 1,7790 101 0 0 23 202 0 0 121 4893606
8:15 AM 0 79 0 0 28 184 0 0 91 4203008
8:30 AM 0 76 0 1 16 179 0 0 106 4203408
8:45 AM 0 92 0 1 9 178 0 0 117 4504607
Count Total 0 776 0 2 158 1,643 0 0 828 3,741283051
Peak Hour 0 426 0 0 81 879 0 0 427 1,983144026
HV% PHF
0.96
0.89
0.86
5.1%
7.6%
10.6%
7.6% 0.92
EB
WB
NB
SB
All 20017
0
12
48 74
7363
29
13 N
S
EW
0 46116200Heavy VehiclesInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
7:00 AM 7 34 7 48
7:15 AM 3 16 6 25
7:30 AM 6 19 9 34
7:45 AM 7 15 20 42
8:00 AM 13 23 13 49
8:15 AM 8 22 11 41
8:30 AM 15 26 17 58
8:45 AM 21 16 19 56
Count Total 80 171 102 353
Peak Hour 29 73 48 150
Pedestrians/Bicycles on CrosswalkInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 2 0 2
7:45 AM 0 1 0 1
8:00 AM 0 1 0 1
8:15 AM 0 1 0 1
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 1 0 1
Count Total 0 6 0 6
Peak Hour 0 4 0 4
Page 56 of 380
Peak Hour:07:00 AM - 08:00 AM
C ST SW C ST SW 8TH ST SW
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location:6 C ST SW & 8TH ST SW AM
Tuesday, September 10, 2019Date:
All Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Traffic Counts - All Vehicles
Heavy Vehicles
Peak Hour
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk370016
0
67
534 963
905513
83
46 N
S
EW
0 4979896008TH ST SW
C ST SWC ST SW1,522
0
01N
S
EW
00
0 0
10Interval
Start Time RightLeft Thru Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
HourRightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn
7:00 AM 1,5220 17 0 0 2 229 0 0 111 3722011
7:15 AM 1,4980 19 0 0 1 213 0 0 114 358308
7:30 AM 1,4840 14 0 0 1 223 0 0 115 365408
7:45 AM 1,4520 17 0 0 5 231 0 0 157 4277010
8:00 AM 1,3610 12 0 0 5 190 1 0 124 3486010
8:15 AM 0 6 0 0 2 202 0 0 125 344108
8:30 AM 0 17 0 0 1 183 0 0 116 3335011
8:45 AM 0 19 0 0 3 144 0 0 153 3363014
Count Total 0 121 0 0 20 1,615 1 0 1,015 2,88331080
Peak Hour 0 67 0 0 9 896 0 0 497 1,52216037
HV% PHF
0.86
0.96
0.80
14.5%
7.6%
8.4%
8.3% 0.89
EB
WB
NB
SB
All 2000
0
12
45 81
6943
12
2 N
S
EW
0 4306900Heavy VehiclesInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
7:00 AM 3 31 6 40
7:15 AM 3 11 8 22
7:30 AM 5 14 10 29
7:45 AM 1 13 21 35
8:00 AM 4 20 17 41
8:15 AM 1 21 19 41
8:30 AM 4 24 18 46
8:45 AM 4 15 28 47
Count Total 25 149 127 301
Peak Hour 12 69 45 126
Pedestrians/Bicycles on CrosswalkInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 1 0 0 1
8:00 AM 1 0 0 1
8:15 AM 2 0 0 2
8:30 AM 1 0 0 1
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
Count Total 5 0 0 5
Peak Hour 1 0 0 1
Page 57 of 380
Peak Hour:07:00 AM - 08:00 AM
S DWY N DWY8TH ST SWW DWY
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location:3 S DWY & 8TH ST SW AM
Tuesday, September 24, 2019Date:
All Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Traffic Counts - All Vehicles
Heavy Vehicles
Peak Hour
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk00127
20
0
0
13
0
12 7
30
53
250
13
20 N
S
EW
3
0 000250W DWY
8TH ST SWS DWYN DWY80
0
000N
S
EW 0000
0 0
00Interval
Start Time RightLeft Thru Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
HourRightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn
7:00 AM 800 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 220190
7:15 AM 700 0 4 2 0 7 0 0 0 0 4 0 220140
7:30 AM 540 0 2 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 180160
7:45 AM 460 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 180460
8:00 AM 420 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 120040
8:15 AM 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 60020
8:30 AM 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 100030
8:45 AM 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 140060
Count Total 0 0 20 9 1 26 0 0 0 0 19 0 12207400
Peak Hour 0 0 13 3 0 20 0 0 0 0 12 0 8007250
HV% PHF
0.81
0.75
0.69
0.60
38.5%
0.0%
24.0%
8.3%
15.0% 0.91
EB
WB
NB
SB
All 0010
0
0
0
5
0
1 0
0
12
60
5
0 N
S
EW
0
0 00060Heavy VehiclesInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
7:00 AM 2 1 0 1 4
7:15 AM 2 0 0 0 2
7:30 AM 0 3 0 0 3
7:45 AM 1 2 0 0 3
8:00 AM 1 1 2 0 4
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 1 0 0 0 1
8:45 AM 0 2 1 0 3
Count Total 7 9 3 1 20
Peak Hour 5 6 0 1 12
Pedestrians/Bicycles on CrosswalkInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1
Count Total 0 1 0 1 2
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0
Page 58 of 380
Peak Hour:07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
C ST SW C ST SW W DWY
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location:2 C ST SW & W DWY AM
Tuesday, September 24, 2019Date:
All Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Traffic Counts - All Vehicles
Heavy Vehicles
Peak Hour
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk24008
0
3
543 965
964527
11
26 N
S
EW
0 519296200W DWY
C ST SWC ST SW1,518
0
06N
S
EW
00
0 0
42Interval
Start Time RightLeft Thru Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
HourRightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn
7:00 AM 1,5040 0 0 0 1 225 0 0 128 356101
7:15 AM 1,5180 1 0 0 1 234 0 0 133 375006
7:30 AM 1,4790 0 0 0 0 252 0 0 110 371306
7:45 AM 1,4330 0 0 0 0 256 0 0 142 402202
8:00 AM 1,3500 2 0 0 1 220 0 0 134 3703010
8:15 AM 0 1 0 0 2 206 0 0 126 336001
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 188 0 0 126 325208
8:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1 187 0 0 121 319603
Count Total 0 5 0 0 7 1,768 0 0 1,020 2,85417037
Peak Hour 0 3 0 0 2 962 0 0 519 1,5188024
HV% PHF
0.55
0.94
0.94
18.2%
5.9%
9.6%
7.3% 0.94
EB
WB
NB
SB
All 1002
0
0
52 56
5753
2
2 N
S
EW
0 5115600Heavy VehiclesInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
7:00 AM 1 27 11 39
7:15 AM 0 14 17 31
7:30 AM 1 12 6 19
7:45 AM 0 9 14 23
8:00 AM 1 22 15 38
8:15 AM 0 24 11 35
8:30 AM 0 28 19 47
8:45 AM 2 7 17 26
Count Total 5 143 110 258
Peak Hour 2 57 52 111
Pedestrians/Bicycles on CrosswalkInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
7:00 AM 2 0 0 2
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 4 0 0 4
7:45 AM 1 0 0 1
8:00 AM 1 0 0 1
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
Count Total 8 0 0 8
Peak Hour 6 0 0 6
Page 59 of 380
Peak Hour:04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
C ST SW C ST SW3RD STSR18 RAMPS
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location:1 C ST SW & 3RD ST PM
Tuesday, September 24, 2019Date:
All Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Traffic Counts - All Vehicles
Heavy Vehicles
Peak Hour
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk226153
8
25
294
3
39
1,005 282
36
17
4421,092
336
428 N
S
EW
0
0 77319423990SR18 RAMPS
3RD STC ST SWC ST SW1,819
2
300N
S
EW 1200
1 1
00Interval
Start Time RightLeft Thru Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
HourRightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn
4:00 PM 1,8190 11 1 0 6 1 0 40 61 0 1 206 456700356
4:15 PM 1,8030 10 1 0 6 2 0 45 74 0 3 177 452832148
4:30 PM 1,8060 9 1 0 8 2 0 57 52 1 0 195 454680160
4:45 PM 1,7420 9 0 0 5 3 0 52 52 0 1 195 457731462
5:00 PM 1,6300 11 0 0 10 2 0 45 49 0 0 214 440621343
5:15 PM 0 16 1 0 2 0 0 59 64 0 1 188 455690748
5:30 PM 0 6 0 0 10 2 1 57 53 0 1 151 390604540
5:45 PM 1 7 0 0 4 1 0 25 60 0 2 151 345590332
Count Total 1 79 4 0 51 13 1 380 465 1 9 1,477 3,449544827389
Peak Hour 0 39 3 0 25 8 0 194 239 1 5 773 1,81929439226
HV% PHF
0.89
0.90
0.92
0.96
12.2%
0.0%
5.2%
3.9%
5.7% 1.00
EB
WB
NB
SB
All 9010
0
0
36
0
5
39 14
0
1
2365
41
23 N
S
EW
0
0 2914900Heavy VehiclesInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
4:00 PM 3 8 0 7 18
4:15 PM 10 3 0 9 22
4:30 PM 15 4 0 13 32
4:45 PM 13 8 0 10 31
5:00 PM 6 2 0 7 15
5:15 PM 7 3 0 3 13
5:30 PM 9 5 0 7 21
5:45 PM 4 6 0 7 17
Count Total 67 39 0 63 169
Peak Hour 41 23 0 39 103
Pedestrians/Bicycles on CrosswalkInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
4:00 PM 0 0 3 2 5
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 2 0 1 1 4
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 2 0 4 3 9
Peak Hour 0 0 3 2 5
Page 60 of 380
Peak Hour:04:15 PM - 05:15 PM
C ST SW C ST SW EB SR18 RAMP
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location:4 C ST SW & EB SR18 RAMP PM
Tuesday, September 24, 2019Date:
All Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Traffic Counts - All Vehicles
Heavy Vehicles
Peak Hour
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk12710134
0
282
1,118 1,054
1,0311,125
416
386 N
S
EW
0 99025977101EB SR18 RAMP
C ST SWC ST SW2,565
0
110N
S
EW
47
0 0
00Interval
Start Time RightLeft Thru Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
HourRightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn
4:00 PM 2,5180 62 0 2 68 178 0 0 212 59146023
4:15 PM 2,5650 74 0 0 64 195 0 0 280 67335025
4:30 PM 2,5260 68 0 1 65 198 0 0 221 62338032
4:45 PM 2,5200 69 0 0 56 177 0 0 262 63132035
5:00 PM 2,4650 71 0 0 74 201 1 0 227 63829035
5:15 PM 0 87 0 1 43 190 0 0 236 63442035
5:30 PM 0 81 0 0 50 174 2 0 257 61727026
5:45 PM 0 89 0 0 40 165 0 0 219 57645018
Count Total 0 601 0 4 460 1,478 3 0 1,914 4,9832940229
Peak Hour 0 282 0 1 259 771 1 0 990 2,5651340127
HV% PHF
0.95
0.94
0.92
4.1%
2.9%
7.1%
4.9% 0.95
EB
WB
NB
SB
All 30011
0
6
79 29
3087
17
10 N
S
EW
0 7672300Heavy VehiclesInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
4:00 PM 7 10 9 26
4:15 PM 4 7 16 27
4:30 PM 5 7 30 42
4:45 PM 4 10 23 37
5:00 PM 4 6 10 20
5:15 PM 6 3 8 17
5:30 PM 6 3 15 24
5:45 PM 3 3 9 15
Count Total 39 49 120 208
Peak Hour 17 30 79 126
Pedestrians/Bicycles on CrosswalkInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 4 0 4
4:30 PM 0 4 0 4
4:45 PM 0 1 0 1
5:00 PM 0 2 0 2
5:15 PM 0 1 0 1
5:30 PM 0 3 0 3
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 15 0 15
Peak Hour 0 11 0 11
Page 61 of 380
Peak Hour:04:15 PM - 05:15 PM
C ST SW C ST SW 8TH ST SW
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location:5 C ST SW & 8TH ST SW PM
Tuesday, September 24, 2019Date:
All Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Traffic Counts - All Vehicles
Heavy Vehicles
Peak Hour
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk860014
0
93
1,130 1,003
9281,058
107
104 N
S
EW
0 1,04418910008TH ST SW
C ST SWC ST SW2,165
1
08N
S
EW
00
0 1
35Interval
Start Time RightLeft Thru Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
HourRightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn
4:00 PM 2,1181 13 0 0 2 234 0 0 241 5185022
4:15 PM 2,1650 23 0 0 3 210 0 0 289 5522025
4:30 PM 2,1290 18 0 0 1 248 0 0 244 5416024
4:45 PM 2,0650 22 0 0 4 214 0 0 247 5073017
5:00 PM 2,0190 30 0 0 10 238 0 0 264 5653020
5:15 PM 0 18 0 0 2 219 0 0 256 5164017
5:30 PM 0 19 0 0 2 188 0 0 247 4773018
5:45 PM 0 20 0 0 3 179 0 0 238 4614017
Count Total 1 163 0 0 27 1,730 0 0 2,026 4,137300160
Peak Hour 0 93 0 0 18 910 0 0 1,044 2,16514086
HV% PHF
0.81
0.93
0.90
2.8%
2.9%
8.1%
5.6% 0.96
EB
WB
NB
SB
All 6000
0
3
91 28
2785
3
8 N
S
EW
0 8522500Heavy VehiclesInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
4:00 PM 1 10 13 24
4:15 PM 0 7 20 27
4:30 PM 2 4 32 38
4:45 PM 1 9 27 37
5:00 PM 0 7 12 19
5:15 PM 1 3 11 15
5:30 PM 1 1 17 19
5:45 PM 0 4 10 14
Count Total 6 45 142 193
Peak Hour 3 27 91 121
Pedestrians/Bicycles on CrosswalkInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
4:00 PM 2 0 0 2
4:15 PM 3 0 1 4
4:30 PM 2 0 0 2
4:45 PM 2 0 0 2
5:00 PM 1 0 0 1
5:15 PM 3 0 0 3
5:30 PM 3 0 0 3
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
Count Total 16 0 1 17
Peak Hour 8 0 1 9
Page 62 of 380
Peak Hour:04:15 PM - 05:15 PM
S DWY N DWY8TH ST SWW DWY
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location:3 S DWY & 8TH ST SW PM
Tuesday, September 24, 2019Date:
All Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Traffic Counts - All Vehicles
Heavy Vehicles
Peak Hour
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk00811
9
2
1
14
0
8 11
28
31
33
15
9 N
S
EW
6
0 00030W DWY
8TH ST SWS DWYN DWY54
1
000N
S
EW 0000
0 1
00Interval
Start Time RightLeft Thru Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
HourRightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn
4:00 PM 490 0 3 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 150110
4:15 PM 540 0 1 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 131120
4:30 PM 520 0 6 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 120100
4:45 PM 510 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 90400
5:00 PM 490 0 5 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 200510
5:15 PM 0 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 110200
5:30 PM 0 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 110210
5:45 PM 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 70100
Count Total 0 0 28 9 5 16 0 0 0 0 17 0 9811750
Peak Hour 0 0 14 6 2 9 0 0 0 0 8 0 5411130
HV% PHF
0.63
0.78
0.38
0.40
13.3%
14.3%
0.0%
0.0%
11.1% 0.68
EB
WB
NB
SB
All 0000
4
0
0
2
0
0 0
4
2
00
2
4 N
S
EW
0
0 00000Heavy VehiclesInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
4:00 PM 0 0 2 0 2
4:15 PM 0 0 1 0 1
4:30 PM 1 0 1 0 2
4:45 PM 1 0 0 0 1
5:00 PM 0 0 2 0 2
5:15 PM 1 0 1 0 2
5:30 PM 1 0 1 0 2
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 4 0 8 0 12
Peak Hour 2 0 4 0 6
Pedestrians/Bicycles on CrosswalkInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 1 1
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 2 2
Count Total 0 0 0 3 3
Peak Hour 0 0 0 1 1
Page 63 of 380
Peak Hour:04:15 PM - 05:15 PM
C ST SW C ST SW W DWY
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location:2 C ST SW & W DWY PM
Tuesday, September 24, 2019Date:
All Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Traffic Counts - All Vehicles
Heavy Vehicles
Peak Hour
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk4007
0
0
1,070 957
9571,073
7
4 N
S
EW
0 1,066095700W DWY
C ST SWC ST SW2,034
0
06N
S
EW
00
0 0
24Interval
Start Time RightLeft Thru Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
HourRightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn
4:00 PM 2,0100 0 0 0 0 242 0 0 252 498400
4:15 PM 2,0340 0 0 0 0 231 0 0 280 515202
4:30 PM 1,9990 0 0 0 0 247 0 0 254 502100
4:45 PM 1,9520 0 0 0 0 224 0 0 266 495401
5:00 PM 1,8780 0 0 0 0 255 0 0 266 522001
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 211 0 0 264 480203
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 255 455000
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 175 0 0 246 421000
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 1,785 0 0 2,083 3,8881307
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 957 0 0 1,066 2,034704
HV% PHF
0.44
0.94
0.95
0.0%
3.0%
7.6%
5.4% 0.97
EB
WB
NB
SB
All 1000
0
0
81 29
2980
0
1 N
S
EW
0 8002900Heavy VehiclesInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
4:00 PM 0 9 9 18
4:15 PM 0 8 19 27
4:30 PM 0 5 25 30
4:45 PM 0 9 23 32
5:00 PM 0 7 14 21
5:15 PM 0 3 6 9
5:30 PM 0 2 16 18
5:45 PM 0 4 9 13
Count Total 0 47 121 168
Peak Hour 0 29 81 110
Pedestrians/Bicycles on CrosswalkInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
4:00 PM 4 0 0 4
4:15 PM 2 0 0 2
4:30 PM 1 0 0 1
4:45 PM 1 0 0 1
5:00 PM 2 0 0 2
5:15 PM 4 0 0 4
5:30 PM 2 0 0 2
5:45 PM 1 0 0 1
Count Total 17 0 0 17
Peak Hour 6 0 0 6
Page 64 of 380
Traffic Impact Analysis
LogistiCenter at Auburn
Appendix B
Level of Service (LOS) Calculations
Page 65 of 380
Traffic Impact Analysis
LogistiCenter at Auburn
Level of Service Methodology
Level of service calculations for intersections were based on methodology and procedures outlined
in the 2016 update of the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board (6th Edition)
using Synchro 10 traffic analysis software.
LOS generally refers to the degree of congestion on a roadway or intersection. It is a measure of
vehicle operating speed, travel time, travel delays, and driving comfort. A letter scale from A to F
generally describes intersection LOS. At signalized intersections, LOS A represents free-flow
conditions (motorists experience little or no delays), and LOS F represents forced-flow conditions
where motorists experience an average delay in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle.
The LOS reported for signalized intersections represents the average control delay (sec/veh) and can
be reported for the overall intersection, for each approach, and for each lane group (additional v/c
ratio criteria apply to lane group LOS only).
The LOS reported at stop-controlled intersections is based on the average control delay and can be
reported for each controlled minor approach, controlled minor lane group, and controlled major-
street movement (and for the overall intersection at all-way stop controlled intersections. Additional
v/c ratio criteria apply to lane group or movement LOS only).
Table B1 outlines the current HCM (6th Edition) LOS criteria for signalized and stop-controlled
intersections based on these methodologies.
Table B1
LOS Criteria for Signalized and Stop Controlled Intersections1
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS
LOS by Volume-to
Capacity (V/C) Ratio2
LOS by Volume-to
Capacity (V/C) Ratio3
Control Delay
(sec/veh) £ 1.0 > 1.0
Control Delay
(sec/veh) £ 1.0 > 1.0
£ 10 A F £ 10 A F
> 10 to £ 20 B F > 10 to £ 15 B F
> 20 to £ 35 C F > 15 to £ 25 C F
> 35 to £ 55 D F > 25 to £ 35 D F
> 55 to £ 80 E F > 35 to £ 50 E F
> 80 F F > 50 F F
1 Source: HCM2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010.
2 For approach-based and intersection-wide assessments at signals, LOS is defined solely by control delay.
3 For two-way stop controlled intersections, the LOS criteria apply to each lane on a given approach and to each approach
on the minor street. LOS is not calculated for major-street approaches or for the intersection as a whole at two-way stop
controlled intersections. For approach-based and intersection-wide assessments at all-way stop controlled intersections,
LOS is solely defined by control delay.
Page 66 of 380
Traffic Impact Analysis
LogistiCenter at Auburn
2019 Existing
Page 67 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1: C St SW & SR 18 WB Ramps/Park and Ride Access 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)82 6 206 8 4 0 338 720 10 3 155 101
Future Volume (vph)82 6 206 8 4 0 338 720 10 3 155 101
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Storage Length (ft)0 200 75 0 400 0 210 170
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft)25 25 25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)25 25 40 40
Link Distance (ft)374 361 651 322
Travel Time (s)10.2 9.8 11.1 5.5
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)1
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Heavy Vehicles (%)7% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 7% 4% 0% 0% 16% 24%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Split NA Prot Split NA Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 6 6 6 2 2 7 4 3 8 6
Permitted Phases 8
Detector Phase 6 6 6 2 2 7 4 3 8 8 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s)9.5 9.5 9.5 42.0 42.0 9.5 30.0 9.5 15.0 9.5
Total Split (s)44.5 44.5 44.5 25.0 25.0 44.5 75.0 24.5 65.0 44.5
Total Split (%)24.9% 24.9% 24.9% 14.0% 14.0% 24.9% 41.9% 13.7% 36.3% 24.9%
Yellow Time (s)3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.5
All-Red Time (s)1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None Min None Min None
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 179
Actuated Cycle Length: 62.5
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: C St SW & SR 18 WB Ramps/Park and Ride Access
Page 68 of 380
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: C St SW & SR 18 WB Ramps/Park and Ride Access 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 82 6 206 8 4 0 338 720 10 3 155 101
Future Volume (veh/h) 82 6 206 8 4 0 338 720 10 3 155 101
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1750 1750 1668 1750 1750 1750 1654 1695 1695 1750 1532 1422
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 83 6 37 8 4 0 341 727 10 3 157 45
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 4 4 0 16 24
Cap, veh/h 146 11 132 26 27 0 599 1221 17 80 697 401
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.20 0.38 0.38 0.05 0.24 0.24
Sat Flow, veh/h 1559 113 1414 1667 1750 0 3057 3253 45 1667 2910 1204
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 89 0 37 8 4 0 341 360 377 3 157 45
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1672 0 1414 1667 1750 0 1528 1611 1687 1667 1455 1204
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 4.2 7.5 7.5 0.1 1.8 1.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 4.2 7.5 7.5 0.1 1.8 1.1
Prop In Lane 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 156 0 132 26 27 0 599 605 634 80 697 401
V/C Ratio(X)0.57 0.00 0.28 0.31 0.15 0.00 0.57 0.60 0.60 0.04 0.23 0.11
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1603 0 1355 799 839 0 2930 2702 2830 799 4184 1844
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.1 0.0 17.6 20.3 20.3 0.0 15.2 10.5 10.5 18.9 12.8 9.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.6 0.0 1.6 9.3 3.5 0.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.2 0.4 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.2 2.0 2.1 0.0 0.5 0.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.7 0.0 19.2 29.6 23.7 0.0 16.4 11.6 11.6 19.2 13.2 10.0
LnGrp LOS C A B C C A B B B B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 126 12 1078 205
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.7 27.6 13.1 12.6
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.6 7.0 20.7 8.4 12.7 15.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 4.5 4.5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 20.0 * 70 40.0 40.0 60.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 2.1 9.5 4.1 6.2 3.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 6.1 1.0 2.0 2.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
User approved changes to right turn type.
Page 69 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
2: C St SW & SR 18 EB Ramp 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 426 144 81 879 427 26
Future Volume (vph) 426 144 81 879 427 26
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Storage Length (ft)385 0 425 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft)25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)25 40 40
Link Distance (ft)946 862 651
Travel Time (s)25.8 14.7 11.1
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles (%)3% 12% 14% 7% 11% 8%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 1 7 4 8
Permitted Phases 1
Detector Phase 1 1 7 4 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s)35.0 35.0 9.5 15.0 15.0
Total Split (s)40.0 40.0 34.5 55.0 55.0
Total Split (%)30.9% 30.9% 26.6% 42.5% 42.5%
Yellow Time (s)4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s)1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None Min None
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 129.5
Actuated Cycle Length: 80.3
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: C St SW & SR 18 EB Ramp
Page 70 of 380
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: C St SW & SR 18 EB Ramp 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 426 144 81 879 427 26
Future Volume (veh/h) 426 144 81 879 427 26
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1709 1586 1559 1654 1600 1600
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 463 61 88 955 464 28
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 12 14 7 11 11
Cap, veh/h 564 466 146 1478 843 51
Arrive On Green 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.47 0.29 0.29
Sat Flow, veh/h 1628 1344 1485 3226 2993 175
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 463 61 88 955 242 250
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1628 1344 1485 1572 1520 1568
Q Serve(g_s), s 14.2 1.7 3.1 12.6 7.3 7.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.2 1.7 3.1 12.6 7.3 7.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 564 466 146 1478 440 454
V/C Ratio(X)0.82 0.13 0.60 0.65 0.55 0.55
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1044 862 816 2880 1392 1437
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.3 12.2 23.6 11.0 16.4 16.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.3 0.2 4.8 0.7 1.5 1.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.4 1.6 1.2 3.4 2.3 2.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.5 12.4 28.4 11.7 17.9 17.9
LnGrp LOS C B C B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 524 1043 492
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.6 13.1 17.9
Approach LOS B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.7 23.9 9.9 20.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 50.0 35.0 30.0 50.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.6 16.2 5.1 9.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 11.0 2.8 0.3 4.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Page 71 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: C St SW & 8th St SW 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)67 16 9 896 497 37
Future Volume (vph)67 16 9 896 497 37
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Satd. Flow (prot)1553 0 0 3345 3279 0
Flt Permitted 0.961 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm)1553 0 0 3178 3279 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR)12 11
Link Speed (mph)25 40 40
Link Distance (ft)998 1775 862
Travel Time (s)27.2 30.3 14.7
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)1
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Heavy Vehicles (%) 18% 0% 0% 8% 9% 5%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 93 0 0 1017 600 0
Turn Type Prot pm+pt NA NA
Protected Phases 6 7 4 8
Permitted Phases 4
Detector Phase 6 7 4 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s)9.0 9.0 9.0 28.0
Total Split (s)29.0 19.0 49.0 49.0
Total Split (%)29.9% 19.6% 50.5% 50.5%
Yellow Time (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
All-Red Time (s)1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None Min Min
Act Effct Green (s)9.3 32.9 32.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.71 0.71
v/c Ratio 0.29 0.45 0.26
Control Delay 17.9 5.3 4.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 17.9 5.3 4.1
LOS B A A
Approach Delay 17.9 5.3 4.1
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 97
Actuated Cycle Length: 46.1
Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Page 72 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: C St SW & 8th St SW 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2019 Existing - AM Peak Hour
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.45
Intersection Signal Delay: 5.5 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.4%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: C St SW & 8th St SW
Page 73 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1: C St SW & SR 18 WB Ramps/Park and Ride Access 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)39 3 294 25 8 3 194 239 9 6 773 226
Future Volume (vph)39 3 294 25 8 3 194 239 9 6 773 226
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Storage Length (ft)0 200 75 0 400 0 210 170
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft)25 25 25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)25 25 40 40
Link Distance (ft)374 361 651 322
Travel Time (s)10.2 9.8 11.1 5.5
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)2 3
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Heavy Vehicles (%) 13% 0% 12% 0% 0% 0% 7% 4% 0% 20% 4% 4%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Split NA Prot Split NA Prot NA Prot NA pt+ov
Protected Phases 6 6 6 2 2 7 4 3 8 8 6
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase 6 6 6 2 2 7 4 3 8 8 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s)9.5 9.5 9.5 42.0 42.0 9.5 30.0 9.5 15.0
Total Split (s)44.5 44.5 44.5 25.0 25.0 44.5 75.0 24.5 65.0
Total Split (%)24.9% 24.9% 24.9% 14.0% 14.0% 24.9% 41.9% 13.7% 36.3%
Yellow Time (s)3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0
All-Red Time (s)1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None Min None Min
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 179
Actuated Cycle Length: 86.2
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: C St SW & SR 18 WB Ramps/Park and Ride Access
Page 74 of 380
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: C St SW & SR 18 WB Ramps/Park and Ride Access 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 39 3 294 25 8 3 194 239 9 6 773 226
Future Volume (veh/h) 39 3 294 25 8 3 194 239 9 6 773 226
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1750 1750 1586 1750 1750 1750 1654 1695 1695 1477 1695 1695
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 39 3 197 25 8 3 194 239 9 6 773 146
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 12 0 0 0 7 4 4 20 4 4
Cap, veh/h 287 22 248 67 48 18 310 441 17 529 1355 870
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.38 0.42 0.42
Sat Flow, veh/h 1553 119 1344 1667 1210 454 3057 3164 119 1407 3221 1437
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 42 0 197 25 0 11 194 121 127 6 773 146
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1672 0 1344 1667 0 1663 1528 1611 1673 1407 1611 1437
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.6 0.0 10.5 1.1 0.0 0.5 4.6 5.3 5.3 0.2 13.7 3.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.6 0.0 10.5 1.1 0.0 0.5 4.6 5.3 5.3 0.2 13.7 3.4
Prop In Lane 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 309 0 248 67 0 67 310 225 233 529 1355 870
V/C Ratio(X)0.14 0.00 0.79 0.37 0.00 0.17 0.62 0.54 0.54 0.01 0.57 0.17
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 891 0 716 444 0 443 1629 1502 1560 529 2575 1414
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.6 0.0 29.2 35.1 0.0 34.8 32.3 30.1 30.1 14.7 16.6 6.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 7.9 4.9 0.0 1.6 2.9 2.4 2.4 0.0 1.0 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 0.0 3.7 0.5 0.0 0.2 1.7 2.1 2.2 0.1 4.6 1.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.9 0.0 37.1 40.0 0.0 36.5 35.3 32.5 32.4 14.7 17.6 6.8
LnGrp LOS C A D D A D D C C B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 239 36 442 925
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.2 38.9 33.7 15.9
Approach LOS D D C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.0 33.2 15.5 18.4 12.1 36.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 4.5 4.5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 20.0 * 70 40.0 40.0 60.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 2.2 7.3 12.5 6.6 15.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.0 1.7 1.4 1.1 15.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Page 75 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
2: C St SW & SR 18 EB Ramp 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 282 134 260 771 990 127
Future Volume (vph) 282 134 260 771 990 127
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Storage Length (ft)385 0 425 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft)25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)25 40 40
Link Distance (ft)946 862 651
Travel Time (s)25.8 14.7 11.1
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)11
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Heavy Vehicles (%)2% 8% 3% 3% 8% 2%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 1 7 4 8
Permitted Phases 1
Detector Phase 1 1 7 4 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s)35.0 35.0 9.5 15.0 15.0
Total Split (s)40.0 40.0 34.5 55.0 55.0
Total Split (%)30.9% 30.9% 26.6% 42.5% 42.5%
Yellow Time (s)4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s)1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None Min None
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 129.5
Actuated Cycle Length: 115.2
Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: C St SW & SR 18 EB Ramp
Page 76 of 380
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: C St SW & SR 18 EB Ramp 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 282 134 260 771 990 127
Future Volume (veh/h) 282 134 260 771 990 127
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1723 1641 1709 1709 1641 1641
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 297 0 274 812 1042 134
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 8 3 3 8 8
Cap, veh/h 343 291 313 2230 1242 160
Arrive On Green 0.21 0.00 0.19 0.69 0.45 0.45
Sat Flow, veh/h 1641 1391 1628 3333 2860 357
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 297 0 274 812 584 592
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1641 1391 1628 1624 1559 1577
Q Serve(g_s), s 16.8 0.0 15.7 10.0 31.8 31.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.8 0.0 15.7 10.0 31.8 31.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.23
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 343 291 313 2230 697 705
V/C Ratio(X)0.87 0.00 0.87 0.36 0.84 0.84
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 598 507 509 2230 812 821
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.7 0.0 37.6 6.3 23.5 23.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.0 0.0 10.7 0.1 7.4 7.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.5 0.0 6.9 2.8 12.1 12.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.7 0.0 48.3 6.4 30.9 30.9
LnGrp LOS D A D A C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 297 1086 1176
Approach Delay, s/veh 45.7 17.0 30.9
Approach LOS D B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 70.9 25.1 23.0 47.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 50.0 35.0 30.0 50.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.0 18.8 17.7 33.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 9.0 1.3 0.8 9.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.7
HCM 6th LOS C
Page 77 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: C St SW & 8th St SW 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)93 14 18 910 1044 86
Future Volume (vph)93 14 18 910 1044 86
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Satd. Flow (prot)1742 0 0 3496 3299 0
Flt Permitted 0.958 0.927
Satd. Flow (perm)1742 0 0 3244 3299 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR)6 18
Link Speed (mph)25 40 40
Link Distance (ft)998 1775 862
Travel Time (s)27.2 30.3 14.7
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)8
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Heavy Vehicles (%)3% 0% 11% 3% 8% 7%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 112 0 0 967 1178 0
Turn Type Prot pm+pt NA NA
Protected Phases 6 7 4 8
Permitted Phases 4
Detector Phase 6 7 4 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s)9.0 9.0 9.0 28.0
Total Split (s)15.0 15.0 85.0 70.0
Total Split (%)15.0% 15.0% 85.0% 70.0%
Yellow Time (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
All-Red Time (s)1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None Min Min
Act Effct Green (s)9.1 34.7 34.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.72 0.72
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.41 0.49
Control Delay 20.2 4.7 5.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 20.2 4.7 5.2
LOS C A A
Approach Delay 20.2 4.7 5.2
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 100
Actuated Cycle Length: 48
Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Page 78 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: C St SW & 8th St SW 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2019 Existing - PM Peak Hour
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.49
Intersection Signal Delay: 5.7 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.6%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: C St SW & 8th St SW
Page 79 of 380
Traffic Impact Analysis
LogistiCenter at Auburn
2021 Without Project
Page 80 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1: C St SW & SR 18 WB Ramps/Park and Ride Access 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 Without Project - AM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 100 6 226 8 4 0 356 780 10 3 182 115
Future Volume (vph) 100 6 226 8 4 0 356 780 10 3 182 115
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Storage Length (ft)0 200 75 0 400 0 210 170
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft)25 25 25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)25 25 40 40
Link Distance (ft)374 361 651 322
Travel Time (s)10.2 9.8 11.1 5.5
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)1
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Heavy Vehicles (%)7% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 7% 4% 0% 0% 15% 24%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Split NA Prot Split NA Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 6 6 6 2 2 7 4 3 8 6
Permitted Phases 8
Detector Phase 6 6 6 2 2 7 4 3 8 8 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s)9.5 9.5 9.5 42.0 42.0 9.5 30.0 9.5 15.0 9.5
Total Split (s)44.5 44.5 44.5 25.0 25.0 44.5 75.0 24.5 65.0 44.5
Total Split (%)24.9% 24.9% 24.9% 14.0% 14.0% 24.9% 41.9% 13.7% 36.3% 24.9%
Yellow Time (s)3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.5
All-Red Time (s)1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None Min None Min None
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 179
Actuated Cycle Length: 65.7
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: C St SW & SR 18 WB Ramps/Park and Ride Access
Page 81 of 380
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: C St SW & SR 18 WB Ramps/Park and Ride Access 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 Without Project - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 100 6 226 8 4 0 356 780 10 3 182 115
Future Volume (veh/h) 100 6 226 8 4 0 356 780 10 3 182 115
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1750 1750 1668 1750 1750 1750 1654 1695 1695 1750 1545 1422
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 100 6 48 8 4 0 356 780 10 3 182 53
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 4 4 0 15 24
Cap, veh/h 178 11 159 26 27 0 610 1283 16 43 680 415
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.20 0.39 0.39 0.03 0.23 0.23
Sat Flow, veh/h 1577 95 1414 1667 1750 0 3057 3257 42 1667 2936 1204
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 106 0 48 8 4 0 356 386 404 3 182 53
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1671 0 1414 1667 1750 0 1528 1611 1688 1667 1468 1204
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 0.0 1.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 4.6 8.2 8.2 0.1 2.2 1.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 0.0 1.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 4.6 8.2 8.2 0.1 2.2 1.3
Prop In Lane 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 188 0 159 26 27 0 610 634 665 43 680 415
V/C Ratio(X)0.56 0.00 0.30 0.31 0.15 0.00 0.58 0.61 0.61 0.07 0.27 0.13
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1549 0 1310 772 811 0 2834 2613 2738 772 4082 1810
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.1 0.0 17.6 21.0 21.0 0.0 15.6 10.4 10.4 20.5 13.6 9.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.7 0.0 1.5 9.3 3.5 0.0 1.3 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.4 2.2 2.3 0.0 0.6 0.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.8 0.0 19.1 30.3 24.4 0.0 16.9 11.6 11.5 21.3 14.2 10.1
LnGrp LOS C A B C C A B B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 154 12 1146 238
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.0 28.4 13.2 13.3
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.7 6.1 22.0 9.4 13.1 15.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 4.5 4.5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 20.0 * 70 40.0 40.0 60.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 2.1 10.2 4.6 6.6 4.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 6.7 1.2 2.1 3.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.1
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
User approved changes to right turn type.
Page 82 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
2: C St SW & SR 18 EB Ramp 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 Without Project - AM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 460 204 93 933 469 35
Future Volume (vph) 460 204 93 933 469 35
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Storage Length (ft)385 0 425 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft)25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)25 40 40
Link Distance (ft)946 862 651
Travel Time (s)25.8 14.7 11.1
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)4
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Heavy Vehicles (%)3% 12% 14% 7% 11% 8%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 1 7 4 8
Permitted Phases 1
Detector Phase 1 1 7 4 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s)35.0 35.0 9.5 15.0 15.0
Total Split (s)40.0 40.0 34.5 55.0 55.0
Total Split (%)30.9% 30.9% 26.6% 42.5% 42.5%
Yellow Time (s)4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s)1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None Min None
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 129.5
Actuated Cycle Length: 81.1
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: C St SW & SR 18 EB Ramp
Page 83 of 380
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: C St SW & SR 18 EB Ramp 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 Without Project - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 460 204 93 933 469 35
Future Volume (veh/h) 460 204 93 933 469 35
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1709 1586 1559 1654 1600 1600
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 460 111 93 933 469 35
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 12 14 7 11 11
Cap, veh/h 570 470 152 1458 796 59
Arrive On Green 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.46 0.28 0.28
Sat Flow, veh/h 1628 1344 1485 3226 2948 213
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 460 111 93 933 248 256
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1628 1344 1485 1572 1520 1561
Q Serve(g_s), s 13.7 3.1 3.2 12.1 7.6 7.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.7 3.1 3.2 12.1 7.6 7.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 570 470 152 1458 422 433
V/C Ratio(X)0.81 0.24 0.61 0.64 0.59 0.59
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1061 877 830 2928 1416 1454
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.8 12.4 23.1 11.0 16.7 16.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.9 0.4 4.7 0.7 1.9 1.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.1 2.8 1.2 3.2 2.4 2.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.7 12.7 27.8 11.6 18.6 18.6
LnGrp LOS B B C B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 571 1026 504
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.4 13.1 18.6
Approach LOS B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.9 23.8 10.0 19.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 50.0 35.0 30.0 50.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.1 15.7 5.2 9.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 10.7 3.0 0.3 4.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Page 84 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: C St SW & 8th St SW 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 Without Project - AM Peak Hour Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)90 17 9 939 566 58
Future Volume (vph)90 17 9 939 566 58
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Satd. Flow (prot)1551 0 0 3345 3270 0
Flt Permitted 0.960 0.949
Satd. Flow (perm)1551 0 0 3174 3270 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR)9 15
Link Speed (mph)25 40 40
Link Distance (ft)998 1775 862
Travel Time (s)27.2 30.3 14.7
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)1
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Heavy Vehicles (%) 18% 0% 0% 8% 9% 5%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 0 0 1065 701 0
Turn Type Prot pm+pt NA NA
Protected Phases 6 7 4 8
Permitted Phases 4
Detector Phase 6 7 4 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s)9.0 9.0 9.0 28.0
Total Split (s)29.0 19.0 49.0 49.0
Total Split (%)29.9% 19.6% 50.5% 50.5%
Yellow Time (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
All-Red Time (s)1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None Min Min
Act Effct Green (s)10.5 32.9 32.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.70 0.70
v/c Ratio 0.34 0.48 0.31
Control Delay 18.8 6.1 4.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 18.8 6.1 4.8
LOS B A A
Approach Delay 18.8 6.1 4.8
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 97
Actuated Cycle Length: 47.1
Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Page 85 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: C St SW & 8th St SW 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 Without Project - AM Peak Hour Page 2
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.48
Intersection Signal Delay: 6.4 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.0%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: C St SW & 8th St SW
Page 86 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1: C St SW & SR 18 WB Ramps/Park and Ride Access 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 Without Project - PM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)49 3 311 26 8 3 206 269 9 6 841 253
Future Volume (vph)49 3 311 26 8 3 206 269 9 6 841 253
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Storage Length (ft)0 200 75 0 400 0 210 170
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft)25 25 25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)25 25 40 40
Link Distance (ft)374 361 651 322
Travel Time (s)10.2 9.8 11.1 5.5
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)2 3
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Heavy Vehicles (%) 13% 0% 12% 0% 0% 0% 7% 4% 0% 20% 4% 4%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Split NA Prot Split NA Prot NA Prot NA pt+ov
Protected Phases 6 6 6 2 2 7 4 3 8 8 6
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase 6 6 6 2 2 7 4 3 8 8 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s)9.5 9.5 9.5 42.0 42.0 9.5 30.0 9.5 15.0
Total Split (s)44.5 44.5 44.5 25.0 25.0 44.5 75.0 24.5 65.0
Total Split (%)24.9% 24.9% 24.9% 14.0% 14.0% 24.9% 41.9% 13.7% 36.3%
Yellow Time (s)3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0
All-Red Time (s)1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None Min None Min
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 179
Actuated Cycle Length: 90.9
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: C St SW & SR 18 WB Ramps/Park and Ride Access
Page 87 of 380
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: C St SW & SR 18 WB Ramps/Park and Ride Access 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 Without Project - PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 49 3 311 26 8 3 206 269 9 6 841 253
Future Volume (veh/h) 49 3 311 26 8 3 206 269 9 6 841 253
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1750 1750 1586 1750 1750 1750 1654 1695 1695 1477 1695 1695
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 49 3 208 26 8 3 206 269 9 6 841 173
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 12 0 0 0 7 4 4 20 4 4
Cap, veh/h 301 18 257 66 48 18 314 428 14 560 1404 901
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.40 0.44 0.44
Sat Flow, veh/h 1575 96 1344 1667 1209 454 3057 3179 106 1407 3221 1437
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 52 0 208 26 0 11 206 136 142 6 841 173
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1671 0 1344 1667 0 1663 1528 1611 1675 1407 1611 1437
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 0.0 12.2 1.3 0.0 0.5 5.3 6.6 6.6 0.2 16.4 4.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 0.0 12.2 1.3 0.0 0.5 5.3 6.6 6.6 0.2 16.4 4.2
Prop In Lane 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 319 0 257 66 0 66 314 217 225 560 1404 901
V/C Ratio(X)0.16 0.00 0.81 0.40 0.00 0.17 0.66 0.63 0.63 0.01 0.60 0.19
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 812 0 653 405 0 404 1485 1370 1424 560 2348 1322
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.8 0.0 31.9 38.6 0.0 38.2 35.5 33.7 33.7 15.0 17.7 6.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 8.4 5.4 0.0 1.7 3.3 3.6 3.5 0.0 1.1 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 4.3 0.6 0.0 0.2 2.0 2.7 2.8 0.1 5.7 1.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.1 0.0 40.2 44.0 0.0 39.9 38.8 37.2 37.2 15.0 18.9 6.8
LnGrp LOS C A D D A D D D D B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 260 37 484 1020
Approach Delay, s/veh 37.8 42.8 37.9 16.8
Approach LOS D D D B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.2 37.8 16.1 20.2 13.0 40.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 4.5 4.5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 20.0 * 70 40.0 40.0 60.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 2.2 8.6 14.2 7.3 18.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.0 2.0 1.6 1.1 17.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Page 88 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
2: C St SW & SR 18 EB Ramp 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 Without Project - PM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 303 171 281 816 1056 148
Future Volume (vph) 303 171 281 816 1056 148
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Storage Length (ft)385 0 425 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft)25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)25 40 40
Link Distance (ft)946 862 651
Travel Time (s)25.8 14.7 11.1
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)11
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Heavy Vehicles (%)2% 8% 3% 3% 8% 2%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 1 7 4 8
Permitted Phases 1
Detector Phase 1 1 7 4 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s)35.0 35.0 9.5 15.0 15.0
Total Split (s)40.0 40.0 34.5 55.0 55.0
Total Split (%)30.9% 30.9% 26.6% 42.5% 42.5%
Yellow Time (s)4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s)1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None Min None
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 129.5
Actuated Cycle Length: 116.9
Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: C St SW & SR 18 EB Ramp
Page 89 of 380
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: C St SW & SR 18 EB Ramp 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 Without Project - PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 303 171 281 816 1056 148
Future Volume (veh/h) 303 171 281 816 1056 148
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1723 1641 1709 1709 1641 1641
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 303 0 281 816 1056 148
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 8 3 3 8 8
Cap, veh/h 347 294 319 2235 1229 172
Arrive On Green 0.21 0.00 0.20 0.69 0.45 0.45
Sat Flow, veh/h 1641 1391 1628 3333 2828 384
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 303 0 281 816 599 605
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1641 1391 1628 1624 1559 1572
Q Serve(g_s), s 17.8 0.0 16.8 10.5 34.4 34.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.8 0.0 16.8 10.5 34.4 34.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.24
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 347 294 319 2235 698 703
V/C Ratio(X)0.87 0.00 0.88 0.37 0.86 0.86
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 575 487 489 2235 780 786
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.1 0.0 39.1 6.5 24.8 24.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.4 0.0 12.7 0.1 9.3 9.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.1 0.0 7.6 2.9 13.5 13.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.5 0.0 51.8 6.6 34.0 34.1
LnGrp LOS D A D A C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 303 1097 1204
Approach Delay, s/veh 48.5 18.2 34.1
Approach LOS D B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 73.8 26.1 24.1 49.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 50.0 35.0 30.0 50.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.5 19.8 18.8 36.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 9.1 1.3 0.8 8.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Page 90 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: C St SW & 8th St SW 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 Without Project - PM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 118 15 19 951 1121 110
Future Volume (vph) 118 15 19 951 1121 110
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Satd. Flow (prot)1745 0 0 3496 3291 0
Flt Permitted 0.958 0.921
Satd. Flow (perm)1745 0 0 3223 3291 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR)5 22
Link Speed (mph)25 40 40
Link Distance (ft)998 1775 862
Travel Time (s)27.2 30.3 14.7
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)8
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Heavy Vehicles (%)3% 0% 11% 3% 8% 7%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 139 0 0 1011 1283 0
Turn Type Prot pm+pt NA NA
Protected Phases 6 7 4 8
Permitted Phases 4
Detector Phase 6 7 4 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s)9.0 9.0 9.0 28.0
Total Split (s)15.0 15.0 85.0 70.0
Total Split (%)15.0% 15.0% 85.0% 70.0%
Yellow Time (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
All-Red Time (s)1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None Min Min
Act Effct Green (s)10.0 34.1 34.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.65 0.65
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.48 0.59
Control Delay 22.0 5.6 6.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 22.0 5.6 6.6
LOS C A A
Approach Delay 22.0 5.6 6.6
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 100
Actuated Cycle Length: 52.1
Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Page 91 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: C St SW & 8th St SW 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 Without Project - PM Peak Hour
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.59
Intersection Signal Delay: 7.1 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.9%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: C St SW & 8th St SW
Page 92 of 380
Traffic Impact Analysis
LogistiCenter at Auburn
2021 With Project
Page 93 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1: C St SW & SR 18 WB Ramps/Park and Ride Access 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 With Project - AM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 100 6 236 8 4 0 364 781 10 3 187 115
Future Volume (vph) 100 6 236 8 4 0 364 781 10 3 187 115
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Storage Length (ft)0 200 75 0 400 0 210 170
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft)25 25 25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)25 25 40 40
Link Distance (ft)374 361 651 322
Travel Time (s)10.2 9.8 11.1 5.5
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)1
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Heavy Vehicles (%)7% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 7% 4% 0% 0% 15% 24%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Split NA Prot Split NA Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 6 6 6 2 2 7 4 3 8 6
Permitted Phases 8
Detector Phase 6 6 6 2 2 7 4 3 8 8 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s)9.5 9.5 9.5 42.0 42.0 9.5 30.0 9.5 15.0 9.5
Total Split (s)44.5 44.5 44.5 25.0 25.0 44.5 75.0 24.5 65.0 44.5
Total Split (%)24.9% 24.9% 24.9% 14.0% 14.0% 24.9% 41.9% 13.7% 36.3% 24.9%
Yellow Time (s)3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.5
All-Red Time (s)1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None Min None Min None
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 179
Actuated Cycle Length: 66
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: C St SW & SR 18 WB Ramps/Park and Ride Access
Page 94 of 380
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: C St SW & SR 18 WB Ramps/Park and Ride Access 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 With Project - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 100 6 236 8 4 0 364 781 10 3 187 115
Future Volume (veh/h) 100 6 236 8 4 0 364 781 10 3 187 115
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1750 1750 1654 1750 1750 1750 1654 1695 1695 1750 1545 1422
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 100 6 54 8 4 0 364 781 10 3 187 53
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 7 0 0 0 7 4 4 0 15 24
Cap, veh/h 181 11 161 26 27 0 619 1281 16 46 676 415
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.20 0.39 0.39 0.03 0.23 0.23
Sat Flow, veh/h 1577 95 1402 1667 1750 0 3057 3257 42 1667 2936 1204
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 106 0 54 8 4 0 364 386 405 3 187 53
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1671 0 1402 1667 1750 0 1528 1611 1688 1667 1468 1204
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 0.0 1.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 4.7 8.3 8.3 0.1 2.3 1.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 0.0 1.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 4.7 8.3 8.3 0.1 2.3 1.3
Prop In Lane 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 192 0 161 26 27 0 619 633 664 46 676 415
V/C Ratio(X)0.55 0.00 0.34 0.31 0.15 0.00 0.59 0.61 0.61 0.06 0.28 0.13
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1538 0 1291 767 805 0 2814 2594 2719 767 4054 1800
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.2 0.0 17.7 21.2 21.1 0.0 15.7 10.5 10.5 20.6 13.8 9.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.5 0.0 1.7 9.3 3.5 0.0 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.4 2.2 2.3 0.0 0.6 0.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.7 0.0 19.4 30.5 24.6 0.0 17.0 11.7 11.6 21.3 14.4 10.1
LnGrp LOS C A B C C A B B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 160 12 1155 243
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.9 28.5 13.3 13.5
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.7 6.2 22.1 9.5 13.3 15.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 4.5 4.5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 20.0 * 70 40.0 40.0 60.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 2.1 10.3 4.6 6.7 4.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 6.7 1.2 2.1 3.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
User approved changes to right turn type.
Page 95 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
2: C St SW & SR 18 EB Ramp 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 With Project - AM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 460 236 96 942 484 35
Future Volume (vph) 460 236 96 942 484 35
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Storage Length (ft)385 0 425 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft)25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)25 40 40
Link Distance (ft)946 862 651
Travel Time (s)25.8 14.7 11.1
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)4
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Heavy Vehicles (%)3% 13% 15% 7% 11% 9%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 1 7 4 8
Permitted Phases 1
Detector Phase 1 1 7 4 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s)35.0 35.0 9.5 15.0 15.0
Total Split (s)40.0 40.0 34.5 55.0 55.0
Total Split (%)30.9% 30.9% 26.6% 42.5% 42.5%
Yellow Time (s)4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s)1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None Min None
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 129.5
Actuated Cycle Length: 81.9
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: C St SW & SR 18 EB Ramp
Page 96 of 380
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: C St SW & SR 18 EB Ramp 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 With Project - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 460 236 96 942 484 35
Future Volume (veh/h) 460 236 96 942 484 35
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1709 1573 1545 1654 1600 1600
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 460 140 96 942 484 35
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 13 15 7 11 11
Cap, veh/h 572 468 154 1462 799 58
Arrive On Green 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.47 0.28 0.28
Sat Flow, veh/h 1628 1333 1472 3226 2955 207
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 460 140 96 942 255 264
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1628 1333 1472 1572 1520 1563
Q Serve(g_s), s 13.9 4.1 3.4 12.5 7.9 8.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.9 4.1 3.4 12.5 7.9 8.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 572 468 154 1462 422 434
V/C Ratio(X)0.80 0.30 0.62 0.64 0.60 0.61
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1047 857 811 2888 1396 1435
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.0 12.8 23.3 11.1 17.1 17.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.8 0.5 4.9 0.7 2.0 2.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.2 0.1 1.3 3.3 2.6 2.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.8 13.3 28.3 11.8 19.0 19.0
LnGrp LOS B B C B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 600 1038 519
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.3 13.3 19.0
Approach LOS B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.3 24.1 10.2 20.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 50.0 35.0 30.0 50.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.5 15.9 5.4 10.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 10.9 3.2 0.3 4.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.1
HCM 6th LOS B
Page 97 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: C St SW & 8th St SW 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 With Project - AM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 105 17 14 936 566 105
Future Volume (vph) 105 17 14 936 566 105
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Satd. Flow (prot)1548 0 0 3340 3215 0
Flt Permitted 0.959 0.943
Satd. Flow (perm)1548 0 0 3153 3215 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR)8 29
Link Speed (mph)25 40 40
Link Distance (ft)686 1203 862
Travel Time (s)18.7 20.5 14.7
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)1
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Heavy Vehicles (%) 18% 0% 7% 8% 9% 11%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 137 0 0 1068 754 0
Turn Type Prot pm+pt NA NA
Protected Phases 6 7 4 8
Permitted Phases 4
Detector Phase 6 7 4 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s)9.0 9.0 9.0 28.0
Total Split (s)29.0 19.0 49.0 49.0
Total Split (%)29.9% 19.6% 50.5% 50.5%
Yellow Time (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
All-Red Time (s)1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None Min Min
Act Effct Green (s)11.2 33.0 33.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.69 0.69
v/c Ratio 0.38 0.49 0.34
Control Delay 19.1 6.6 5.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 19.1 6.6 5.2
LOS B A A
Approach Delay 19.1 6.6 5.2
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 97
Actuated Cycle Length: 48
Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Page 98 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: C St SW & 8th St SW 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 With Project - AM Peak Hour
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.49
Intersection Signal Delay: 6.9 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.3%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: C St SW & 8th St SW
Page 99 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
4: Site Access/Driveway & 8th St SW 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 With Project - AM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)0 14 0 55 21 7 0 0 41 12 0 0
Future Volume (vph)0 14 0 55 21 7 0 0 41 12 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Link Speed (mph)25 30 25 25
Link Distance (ft)312 686 374 207
Travel Time (s)8.5 15.6 10.2 5.6
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 36% 0% 19% 0% 0% 0% 0% 22% 8% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Page 100 of 380
HCM 6th TWSC
4: Site Access/Driveway & 8th St SW 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 With Project - AM Peak Hour
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 14 0 55 21 7 0 0 41 12 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 14 0 55 21 7 0 0 41 12 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 36 0 19 0 0 0 0 22 8 0 0
Mvmt Flow 0 15 0 60 23 8 0 0 45 13 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 31 0 0 15 0 0 162 166 15 185 162 27
Stage 1 - - - - - - 15 15 - 147 147 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 147 151 - 38 15 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.29 - - 7.1 6.5 6.42 7.18 6.5 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.18 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.18 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.371 - - 3.5 4 3.498 3.572 4 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1595 - - 1499 - - 808 730 1009 763 734 1054
Stage 1 - - - - - - 1010 887 - 842 779 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 860 776 - 962 887 -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1595 - - 1499 - - 783 700 1009 707 704 1054
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 783 700 - 707 704 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 1010 887 - 842 747 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 825 744 - 920 887 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 5 8.7 10.2
HCM LOS A B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)1009 1595 - - 1499 - - 707
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 - - - 0.04 - - 0.018
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 0 - - 7.5 0 - 10.2
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0.1 - - 0.1
Page 101 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
5: C St SW & Site Access 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 With Project - AM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)0 11 0 1013 589 25
Future Volume (vph)0 11 0 1013 589 25
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Link Speed (mph)30 40 40
Link Distance (ft)484 572 1203
Travel Time (s)11.0 9.8 20.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 18% 0% 6% 10% 4%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Page 102 of 380
HCM 6th TWSC
5: C St SW & Site Access 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 With Project - AM Peak Hour
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 11 0 1013 589 25
Future Vol, veh/h 0 11 0 1013 589 25
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, %0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 18 0 6 10 4
Mvmt Flow 0 12 0 1101 640 27
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - 334 - 0 - 0
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - 7.26 - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - 3.48 - - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 617 0 - - -
Stage 1 0 - 0 - - -
Stage 2 0 - 0 - - -
Platoon blocked, %- - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 617 - - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 11 0 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)- 617 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.019 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) - 11 - -
HCM Lane LOS - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.1 - -
Page 103 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1: C St SW & SR 18 WB Ramps/Park and Ride Access 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 With Project - PM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)49 3 315 26 8 3 230 274 9 6 842 253
Future Volume (vph)49 3 315 26 8 3 230 274 9 6 842 253
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Storage Length (ft)0 200 75 0 400 0 210 170
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft)25 25 25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)25 25 40 40
Link Distance (ft)374 361 651 322
Travel Time (s)10.2 9.8 11.1 5.5
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)2 3
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Heavy Vehicles (%) 12% 0% 12% 0% 0% 0% 8% 4% 0% 20% 4% 4%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Split NA Prot Split NA Prot NA Prot NA pt+ov
Protected Phases 6 6 6 2 2 7 4 3 8 8 6
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase 6 6 6 2 2 7 4 3 8 8 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s)9.5 9.5 9.5 42.0 42.0 9.5 30.0 9.5 15.0
Total Split (s)44.5 44.5 44.5 25.0 25.0 44.5 75.0 24.5 65.0
Total Split (%)24.9% 24.9% 24.9% 14.0% 14.0% 24.9% 41.9% 13.7% 36.3%
Yellow Time (s)3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0
All-Red Time (s)1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None Min None Min
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 179
Actuated Cycle Length: 92.5
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: C St SW & SR 18 WB Ramps/Park and Ride Access
Page 104 of 380
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: C St SW & SR 18 WB Ramps/Park and Ride Access 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 With Project - PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 49 3 315 26 8 3 230 274 9 6 842 253
Future Volume (veh/h) 49 3 315 26 8 3 230 274 9 6 842 253
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1750 1750 1586 1750 1750 1750 1641 1695 1695 1477 1695 1695
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 49 3 200 26 8 3 230 274 9 6 842 172
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 12 0 0 0 8 4 4 20 4 4
Cap, veh/h 291 18 248 66 48 18 340 432 14 570 1400 890
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.40 0.43 0.43
Sat Flow, veh/h 1575 96 1344 1667 1209 454 3032 3182 104 1407 3221 1437
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 52 0 200 26 0 11 230 138 145 6 842 172
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1671 0 1344 1667 0 1663 1516 1611 1675 1407 1611 1437
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 0.0 11.8 1.3 0.0 0.5 6.0 6.7 6.8 0.2 16.6 4.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 0.0 11.8 1.3 0.0 0.5 6.0 6.7 6.8 0.2 16.6 4.3
Prop In Lane 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 309 0 248 66 0 65 340 219 228 570 1400 890
V/C Ratio(X)0.17 0.00 0.81 0.40 0.00 0.17 0.68 0.63 0.64 0.01 0.60 0.19
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 806 0 649 402 0 401 1463 1360 1414 570 2331 1305
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.4 0.0 32.4 38.9 0.0 38.5 35.4 33.9 33.9 14.7 17.9 6.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 8.4 5.4 0.0 1.7 3.3 3.6 3.5 0.0 1.2 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 4.2 0.6 0.0 0.2 2.3 2.7 2.8 0.1 5.7 2.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.8 0.0 40.8 44.3 0.0 40.2 38.7 37.5 37.4 14.8 19.1 7.1
LnGrp LOS C A D D A D D D D B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 252 37 513 1020
Approach Delay, s/veh 38.3 43.1 38.0 17.1
Approach LOS D D D B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.3 38.6 16.3 19.8 13.8 41.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 4.5 4.5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 20.0 * 70 40.0 40.0 60.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 2.2 8.8 13.8 8.0 18.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.0 2.0 1.5 1.3 17.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Page 105 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
2: C St SW & SR 18 EB Ramp 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 With Project - PM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 303 183 291 845 1061 148
Future Volume (vph) 303 183 291 845 1061 148
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Storage Length (ft)385 0 425 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft)25 25
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)25 40 40
Link Distance (ft)946 862 651
Travel Time (s)25.8 14.7 11.1
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)11
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Heavy Vehicles (%)2% 9% 3% 3% 8% 3%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 1 7 4 8
Permitted Phases 1
Detector Phase 1 1 7 4 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s)35.0 35.0 9.5 15.0 15.0
Total Split (s)40.0 40.0 34.5 55.0 55.0
Total Split (%)30.9% 30.9% 26.6% 42.5% 42.5%
Yellow Time (s)4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s)1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None Min None
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 129.5
Actuated Cycle Length: 117.6
Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: C St SW & SR 18 EB Ramp
Page 106 of 380
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: C St SW & SR 18 EB Ramp 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 With Project - PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 303 183 291 845 1061 148
Future Volume (veh/h) 303 183 291 845 1061 148
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1723 1627 1709 1709 1641 1641
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 303 0 291 845 1061 148
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 9 3 3 8 8
Cap, veh/h 346 291 328 2243 1223 170
Arrive On Green 0.21 0.00 0.20 0.69 0.45 0.45
Sat Flow, veh/h 1641 1379 1628 3333 2830 383
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 303 0 291 845 601 608
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1641 1379 1628 1624 1559 1572
Q Serve(g_s), s 18.2 0.0 17.7 11.1 35.5 35.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.2 0.0 17.7 11.1 35.5 35.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.24
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 346 291 328 2243 694 700
V/C Ratio(X)0.88 0.00 0.89 0.38 0.87 0.87
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 564 474 480 2243 766 772
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.9 0.0 39.5 6.6 25.5 25.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.0 0.0 14.2 0.1 10.1 10.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.4 0.0 8.1 3.1 14.0 14.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.8 0.0 53.8 6.7 35.6 35.7
LnGrp LOS D A D A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 303 1136 1209
Approach Delay, s/veh 49.8 18.8 35.7
Approach LOS D B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 75.3 26.5 25.0 50.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 50.0 35.0 30.0 50.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.1 20.2 19.7 37.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 9.5 1.3 0.8 7.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Page 107 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: C St SW & 8th St SW 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 With Project - PM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 157 15 20 951 1121 127
Future Volume (vph) 157 15 20 951 1121 127
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Satd. Flow (prot)1687 0 0 3496 3277 0
Flt Permitted 0.956 0.918
Satd. Flow (perm)1687 0 0 3213 3277 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR)4 25
Link Speed (mph)25 40 40
Link Distance (ft)696 1210 862
Travel Time (s)19.0 20.6 14.7
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)8
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Heavy Vehicles (%)7% 0% 10% 3% 8% 9%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 180 0 0 1012 1300 0
Turn Type Prot pm+pt NA NA
Protected Phases 6 7 4 8
Permitted Phases 4
Detector Phase 6 7 4 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s)9.0 9.0 9.0 28.0
Total Split (s)15.0 15.0 85.0 70.0
Total Split (%)15.0% 15.0% 85.0% 70.0%
Yellow Time (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
All-Red Time (s)1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None Min Min
Act Effct Green (s)11.0 31.9 31.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.63 0.63
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.50 0.63
Control Delay 22.5 6.2 7.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 22.5 6.2 7.4
LOS C A A
Approach Delay 22.5 6.2 7.4
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 100
Actuated Cycle Length: 50.9
Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Page 108 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: C St SW & 8th St SW 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 With Project - PM Peak Hour
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.63
Intersection Signal Delay: 8.0 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.8%ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: C St SW & 8th St SW
Page 109 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
4: Site Access/Driveway & 8th St SW 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 With Project - PM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)0 15 1 20 9 11 0 0 42 8 0 0
Future Volume (vph)0 15 1 20 9 11 0 0 42 8 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Link Speed (mph)25 30 25 25
Link Distance (ft)302 696 478 187
Travel Time (s)8.2 15.8 13.0 5.1
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 13% 0% 20% 44% 0% 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Page 110 of 380
HCM 6th TWSC
4: Site Access/Driveway & 8th St SW 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 With Project - PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 15 1 20 9 11 0 0 42 8 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 15 1 20 9 11 0 0 42 8 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 13 0 20 44 0 0 0 17 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 0 16 1 22 10 12 0 0 46 9 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 22 0 0 17 0 0 77 83 17 100 77 16
Stage 1 - - - - - - 17 17 - 60 60 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 60 66 - 40 17 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.3 - - 7.1 6.5 6.37 7.1 6.5 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.38 - - 3.5 4 3.453 3.5 4 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1607 - - 1491 - - 917 811 1020 886 817 1069
Stage 1 - - - - - - 1008 885 - 957 849 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 957 844 - 980 885 -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1607 - - 1491 - - 907 799 1020 836 805 1069
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 907 799 - 836 805 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 1008 885 - 957 836 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 943 831 - 936 885 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 3.7 8.7 9.4
HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)1020 1607 - - 1491 - - 836
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.045 - - - 0.015 - - 0.01
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 0 - - 7.5 0 - 9.4
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A A - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0
Page 111 of 380
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
5: C St SW & Site Access 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 With Project - PM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)0 17 0 1001 1144 4
Future Volume (vph)0 17 0 1001 1144 4
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Link Speed (mph)25 40 40
Link Distance (ft)689 565 1210
Travel Time (s)18.8 9.6 20.6
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 12% 0% 3% 8% 25%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Page 112 of 380
HCM 6th TWSC
5: C St SW & Site Access 10/11/2019
LogistiCenter at Auburn Synchro 10 Report
2021 With Project - PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 17 0 1001 1144 4
Future Vol, veh/h 0 17 0 1001 1144 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, %0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 12 0 3 8 25
Mvmt Flow 0 18 0 1088 1243 4
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - 624 - 0 - 0
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - 7.14 - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - 3.42 - - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 405 0 - - -
Stage 1 0 - 0 - - -
Stage 2 0 - 0 - - -
Platoon blocked, %- - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 405 - - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 14.3 0 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)- 405 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.046 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) - 14.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.1 - -
Page 113 of 380
Traffic Impact Analysis
LogistiCenter at Auburn
Appendix C
Detailed Trip Generation Calculations
Page 114 of 380
ITELand UseUnits 1LUC 2In Out Trip Rate In Out TotalTruck % Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total DailyProposed Use:Warehousing330,000 GFA15050%50%Equation28428356720%5756113227227454New Daily Trips = 2842835675756113227227454AM Peak HourProposed Use:Warehousing330,000 GFA15077%23%Equation50156520%10313401252New AM Peak Hour Trips = 50156510313401252PM Peak HourProposed Use:Warehousing330,000 GFA15027%73%Equation18496720%4913144054New PM Peak Hour Trips = 1849674913144054Notes:2 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 10th edition, Land Use Code. 1 GFA = Gross Floor Area.Truck Trip GenerationNon-Truck Trip Directional DistributionTrips GeneratedLogistiCenter at AuburnTrip Generation Summary10/11/2019 Page 115 of 380
Soundview Consultants LLC
Environmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions
2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335
Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn 1 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
Technical Memorandum
To: Phil Wood, Dermody Properties File Number: 1379.0003
From: Jon Pickett, Soundview Consultants LLC Revision Date: July 7, 2020
Re: Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment
901 C Street SW, Auburn, WA 98001 – LogistiCenter at Auburn
Dear Mr. Wood,
Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) conducted a wetland and fish and wildlife habitat assessment of
an approximately 19.02-acre property located at 901 C Street Southwest in the City of Auburn in King
County, Washington (Figure 1). The property consists of two parcels located in the Northeast ¼ of
Section 24, Township 21 North, Range 04 East, W.M. (King County Tax Parcel Numbers 2421049001
and 2421049054). The initial site reconnaissance and formal follow-up investigation were conducted
to assess potential wetland presence onsite and review the prior-designated conservation easement
area. This Technical Memorandum has been prepared and updated to document the results of the
assessments.
Figure 1. Subject Property Location.
Subject Property
Location
Page 116 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn 2 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
Project Description
The Applicant proposes to redevelop the subject property for industrial use, which will include
stormwater detention and treatment infrastructure, access drives, landscaping, vehicle and truck
parking, and associated infrastructure.
Background Data
Prior to the site investigation, SVC conducted background research using King County Geographic
Information System (GIS) data, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority
Habitat and Species (PHS) and SalmonScape mapping tools, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National Wetland Inventory (NWI), Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) water
typing system, U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, and Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) soil survey, local precipitation data, and various ortho-photographic resources (Attachment
B).
The USFWS NWI map (Attachment B1) and the WDFW PHS map (Attachment B2) both
erroneously identify palustrine emergent (PEM) wetlands located in the southwest corner and
northeastern section of the subject parcel in clearly developed areas. NWI also identified a potential
linear palustrine forested or scrub-shrub (PFO/SS) wetland running parallel to the railroad beginning
northwest of the subject property; given its location and linear and narrow shape, this appears to be
stormwater ditch associated with the railroad. The King County wetlands inventory does not identify
any wetland features on or near the subject property. No other wetlands are identified within 300 feet
of the subject property.
The WDFW PHS map (Attachment B2) and WDFW SalmonScape map (Attachment B3) do not
identify any priority habitats or species on or within 300 feet of the subject property. Similarly, the
USFWS NWI map (Attachment B1), DNR stream typing map (Attachment B4), and King County
stream and wetland inventory (Attachment B5) do not document any streams in the vicinity of the
subject property. The NRCS Soil Map (Attachment B8) identifies one soil series on the subject
property: Urban Land, which is soil that is modified by disturbance of the natural layers and the
addition of fill material. Urban Land does not have hydric soils status due its genesis being dependent
on development related activities and its composition including imported fill material.
Precipitation
Precipitation data was obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
weather station at the Sea-Tac Airport Station in order to acquire percent of normal precipitation for
the Puget Sound area during and preceding the investigation. A summary of data collected is provided
in Table 1.
Table 1. Precipitation Summary1.
Site Visit
Date
Day
of Day
Before 1 Week
Prior 2 Weeks
Prior 30 Days Prior
(Observed/Normal) Year to Date2
(Observed/Normal)
Percent of
Normal3
(30 Days Prior/
Year to Date)
10/02/19 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.43 3.32/1.60 35.84/37.70 201/95
05/08/20 0.00 0.00 0.41 1.25 2.10/2.49 31.90/31.42 84/102
Notes:
1. Precipitation levels provided in inches. Data obtained from NOAA (http://w2.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=sew)
2. Year-to-date precipitation is for the 2018/2019 water year for the October 2019 site visit date and the 2019/2020 water year
for the May 2020 site visit date.
Page 117 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn 3 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
3. Percent of normal shown for both 30 days prior and water year.
Precipitation levels during the October 2019 site visit were well above statistical normal for the 30
days prior (201 percent of normal) and within the normal range for the 2018/2019 water year (95
percent of normal). Precipitation levels in the beginning of the growing season during the May 2020
site investigation were within the normal range for the prior 30 days (84 percent of normal) and the
2019/2020 water year (102 percent of normal). This data suggests that hydrologic conditions
encountered may have been wetter than normal during our October 2019 site visit but normalized
during the beginning of the growing season during the early May 2020 site visit. Such conditions were
considered in making professional wetland determinations.
Methods
An initial site reconnaissance was performed by SVC in the fall of 2019 with a formal follow-up site
visit performed in Spring of 2020. The investigations consisted of a walk-through surveys of the
subject property and accessible areas within 300 feet of this area for potentially-regulated wetlands,
waterbodies, fish and wildlife habitat, and/or priority habitat species as specified in the Auburn City
Code (ACC) Chapter 16.10 (Critical Areas).
Wetlands, streams, and select fish and wildlife habitats and species are regulated features per ACC
16.10 and subject to restricted uses/activities under the same title. Wetland presence/absence was
determined in accordance with ACC 16.10.080.C and as outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and modified according to the
guidelines established in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, Version 2.0 (USACE, 2010) and Field Indicators of Hydric Soils
in the United States (NRCS, 2018). To mark the points where data was collected (DP-1 and DP-2), pink
surveyor’s flagging was alpha-numerically labeled and tied to 3-foot lath or vegetation at each sampling
location (shown in Attachment A). Additional tests pits were excavated throughout the subject
property to further confirm wetland absence.
Results
The subject property is located in an industrial setting and has been entirely cleared, graded and filled,
with the exception of an area on the northwestern portion of the site. The subject property is bounded
by Union Pacific railroad tracks to the west and industrial development to the north, south, and east.
The site is sparsely vegetated due to the developed nature of the site, with the exception of the
northwest corner of the site which is dominated by planted Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra) and Nootka
rose (Rosa nutkana) and non-native invasive reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Topography on the
site is generally flat with elevations ranging from approximately 80 to 85 feet above mean sea level
(Attachment B7).
Non-Exclusive Conservation Easement Agreement
In 2003, La Pianta LLC entered into a voluntary, non-exclusive Conservation Easement Agreement
(CEA) with the City of Auburn for a potential wetland and buffer area onsite (Attachment D).
Exhibit C of the CEA and the ALTA Survey (Attachment A) identify the surveyed boundary for the
wetland and buffer area as specified in the CEA on the northwestern portion of the subject property.
In accordance with the CEA, the “Wetland Property” was determined in accordance with the methods
set forth in the 1987 US Army Corp of Engineers manual in use January 1, 1995 and the Washington
State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (McMillan, 1997). It is important to note that
the wetland determination in 2003 would have utilized outdated wetland delineation methods which
Page 118 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn 4 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
in many instances yielded positive wetland indicators that would not meet technical wetland criteria
under current wetland delineation methodology (USACE, 2010). Per the CEA, “should a delineation
within the parameters of the methodology in use at that time reveal that the subject wetland no longer
meets the criteria for classification as a regulated wetland, this Conservation Easement and Agreement
shall terminate, and all rights all rights here under and any improvement remaining in the Conservation
Easement area shall revert to or otherwise become the property of the Grantor”.
No potentially regulated wetlands, streams, priority species, or other fish and wildlife habitat were
observed on or within 300 feet of the site. SVC’s site assessment in October 2019 and May 2020
identified the CEA area on the northwestern portion of the site which currently does not meet wetland
criteria due to a lack of wetland hydrology in the beginning of the growing season. Two representative
data plots (DP-1 and DP-2) were collected to document the non-wetland conditions in the CEA area.
Photographs of general site conditions and the formal data plot locations are included in Attachment
C, and the data forms are provided in Attachment E.
Data plots DP-1 and DP-2 technically exhibited hydrophytic vegetation due to a dominance of non-
native invasive reed canarygrass, an aggressive species common of many upland areas, and Pacific
willow and Nootka rose which were planted within the CEA. Other dominant vegetation within the
CEA area includes non-native invasive Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), Canada thistle
(Cirsium arvense), and creeping nightshade (Solanum dulcamara). The soils at data plot DP-1 met hydric
soil indicators A11 (Depleted Below Dark Surface) and F3 (Depleted Matrix) due to the presence of
a depleted matrix (10YR 4/1) with 25 percent redox concentrations starting at 8 inches bgs. Soils at
data plot DP-2 met hydric soil indicator F6 (Redox Dark Surface) due to the presence of 15 percent
redox concentrations in a dark surface (10YR 3/2) layer 15 inches thick starting at 7 inches bgs. While
these soils are considered hydric, it is important to note that many of the redox concentrations were
observed to have hard edges rather than the gradual fading “halos” and as such are likely relic features.
In addition, no primary wetland hydrology indicators were observed at either data plots DP-1 or DP-
2 in the beginning of the growing season under normal hydrologic conditions. No surface water, high
water table, or saturation were observed within the maximum depth explored of 24 inches bgs. As
neither of the formal data plots met all three required wetland criteria (a predominance of hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology) according to current wetland delineation
methodology, the CEA area identified on the northwestern portion of the site is not considered a
regulated wetland area. Therefore, in accordance with the CEA, the CEA area no longer meets the
parameters of the current wetland methodology in use at that time reveal for classification as a
regulated wetland, the CEA shall terminate, and all rights under and any improvement remaining in
the Conservation Easement area shall revert to or otherwise become the property of the Grantor.
Unregulated Stormwater detention Ponds
Two stormwater detention ponds were identified offsite to the north and west of the CEA area. The
stormwater pond appears to have been artificially and intentionally excavated due to the unnatural
sharp edges, intentional rectangular and unnatural shapes, and steep sides that are all distinctive of
manmade conditions. Review of historical aerial imagery in Google Earth corroborates the artificial
nature of these features. The stormwater pond to the north of the CEA is absent in July of 1990
(Attachment B8) and is then present in June of 2002 (Attachment B9); the stormwater pond to the
west of the CEA is absent in July 2005 (Attachment B10) and is then present in April 2006
(Attachment B11). In addition, the stormwater detention ponds appear to have been created out of
uplands; prior to their construction, no evidence of potential inundation or ground saturation or
distinct changes in vegetation were present in the areas that would indicate the presence of a potential
wetlands. Further, the mapped soil in this area is Urban Land, which is considered a non-hydric soil.
Page 119 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn 5 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
July 7, 2020
Per ACC 16.10.020, wetlands do not include “those artificial wetlands intentionally created from
nonwetland sites, including but not limited to irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals,
detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities”. Therefore,
the stormwater infrastructure located on the northwestern portion of the site are not considered
regulated wetland areas.
Regulatory Considerations
In accordance with the CEA, the intention of the agreement was to capture both the wetland and
wetland buffer area, referred to as the “Wetland Property” (Attachment D). The non-exclusive
voluntary CEA no longer meets all three wetland criteria based on current wetland delineation
methodology, and should not be considered a wetland or wetland buffer area per ACC 16.10.080.
Conclusions
SVC’s site investigations identified the prior designated CEA area and determined that it no longer
meets all three required wetland criteria based on current delineation methodology. Therefore, in
accordance with the CEA, the CEA shall be terminated, and all rights under and any improvement
remaining in the Conservation Easement area shall revert to or otherwise become the property of the
Grantor. No other potentially regulated wetlands, streams, priority species, or other fish and wildlife
habitat were observed on or within 300 feet of the site.
If you have any further questions, please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
_____________________________ _________________
Jon Pickett Date
Associate Principal
Page 120 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn 6 Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
References
Brinson, M. M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands, Technical Report WRP-DE-4, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Cowardin, L.M. V. Carter, F. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-
87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the
United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal
Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale.
2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing
Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-008. Olympia,
Washington. April 2005.
Hitchcock, C.L. & A. Cronquist, Ed. by D. Giblin, B. Ledger, P. Zika, and R. Olmstead. 2018. Flora
of the Pacific Northwest, 2nd Edition. U.W. Press and Burke Museum. Seattle, Washington.
Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List:
2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X.
Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York.
McMillan, Andy. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #96-94. Olympia, Washington. March
1997.
NRCS. 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W.
Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils.
Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale.
2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State
Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-006. Olympia, Washington. March 2005.
Auburn City Code (ACC). 2019. Chapter 16.10.080 – Classification and Rating of Critical Areas. Website:
https://auburn.municipal.codes/ACC/16.10.080. Revised December 2, 2019.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar,
and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-13. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center.
Page 121 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
Attachment A – Existing Conditions Maps (ALTA
Survey)
Page 122 of 380
8TH ST SW(PUBLIC ROW CONNECT TO 'C" ST.)C ST SW
(PUBLIC ROW)
UNION PACIFIC RR RW
15TH ST SW(PUBLIC ROW)EXISITNG TRACKS
For:Title:
20887
1
DERMODY PHILLIP WOOD
PROPERTIES
11900 NE 1ST ST., SUITE 300
BELLEVUE, WA 980051
ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY
PTN OF THE NE1/4 & NWI/4 OF THE NE1/4 OF SEC. 24,
TWP. 21 N., RGE 4 EAST, W. M.
CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY,
STATE OF WASHINGTON ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYSCALE: 1"=100'NLEGENDSITEVICINITY MAPAUBURN, WASHINGTON18167······“” 9/4/20199/4/2019Page 123 of 380
DP-1
DP-2
Soundview Consultants
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,
bb133ec5e0514dc3adbebc72739a7f00
Data Point
Culvert
Catch Basin
Statewide Parcels
7/6/2020, 4:17:54 PM 0 0.03 0.050.01 mi
0 0.04 0.080.02 km
1:2,257
Soundview Consultants
Maxar | Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency | Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community | Copyright (C) 2017 - Kitsap County, Hexagon Imagery | Pierce County WA |
Page 124 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
Attachment B – Background Information
This attachment includes a USFWS NWI Map (B1); WDFW PHS Map (B2); WDFW SalmonScape
Map (B3); DNR Stream Typing Map (B4); King County Stream and Wetland Inventory Map (B5);
USGS Contours Map (B6); NRCS Soil Survey Map (B7); July 1990 Google Earth Aerial Photograph
(B8); June 2002 Google Earth Aerial Photograph (B9); July 2005 Google Earth Aerial Photograph
(B10); and April 2006 Google Earth Aerial Photograph (B11).
Page 125 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
Attachment B1 – USFWS NWI Map
Subject Property
Location
Page 126 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
Attachment B2 – WDFW PHS Map
Subject Property
Location
Page 127 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
Attachment B3 – WDFW SalmonScape Map
Subject Property
Location
Page 128 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
Attachment B4 – DNR Stream Typing Map
Subject Property
Location
Page 129 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
Attachment B5 – King County Stream and Wetland Inventory Map
Subject Property
Location
Page 130 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
Attachment B6 – USGS Contours Map
Subject Property
Location
Page 131 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
Attachment B7 – NRCS Soil Survey
Subject Property
Location
Page 132 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
Attachment B8 – July 1990 Google Earth Aerial Photograph
Absence of
Stormwater Pond
Page 133 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
Attachment B9 – June 2002 Google Earth Aerial Photograph
Presence of
Stormwater Pond
Page 134 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
Attachment B10 – July 2005 Google Earth Aerial Photograph
Absence of
Stormwater Pond
Page 135 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
Attachment B11 – April 2006 Google Earth Aerial Photograph
Presence of
Stormwater Pond
Page 136 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
Attachment C – Site Photographs
Conservation Easement Area (CEA) on Subject Property
Stormwater Detention Pond West of CEA
Area
Stormwater Detention Pond North of
CEA Area
Page 137 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
Data Plot DP-1 Soil Profile
Lack of Hydrology at Data Plot DP-1
View of Data Plot DP-1
Page 138 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
Data Plot DP-2 Soil Profile
Lack of Hydrology at Data Plot DP-2
View of Data Plot DP-2
Page 139 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
View of Onsite Stormwater Pond
View of Grading Limits near the CEA Area
Page 140 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
Center of CEA Area
Page 141 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
Attachment D – Conservation Easement Agreement
(CEA)
Page 142 of 380
Order: QuickView_Page 1 of 10 Requested By: james.isom, Printed: 8/8/2016 10:20 AM
Doc: KC:2004 20040102002182~53033
Page 143 of 380
Order: QuickView_Page 2 of 10 Requested By: james.isom, Printed: 8/8/2016 10:20 AM
Doc: KC:2004 20040102002182~53033
Page 144 of 380
Order: QuickView_Page 3 of 10 Requested By: james.isom, Printed: 8/8/2016 10:20 AM
Doc: KC:2004 20040102002182~53033
Page 145 of 380
Order: QuickView_Page 4 of 10 Requested By: james.isom, Printed: 8/8/2016 10:20 AM
Doc: KC:2004 20040102002182~53033
Page 146 of 380
Order: QuickView_Page 5 of 10 Requested By: james.isom, Printed: 8/8/2016 10:20 AM
Doc: KC:2004 20040102002182~53033
Page 147 of 380
Order: QuickView_Page 6 of 10 Requested By: james.isom, Printed: 8/8/2016 10:20 AM
Doc: KC:2004 20040102002182~53033
Page 148 of 380
Order: QuickView_Page 7 of 10 Requested By: james.isom, Printed: 8/8/2016 10:20 AM
Doc: KC:2004 20040102002182~53033
Page 149 of 380
Order: QuickView_Page 8 of 10 Requested By: james.isom, Printed: 8/8/2016 10:20 AM
Doc: KC:2004 20040102002182~53033
Page 150 of 380
Order: QuickView_Page 9 of 10 Requested By: james.isom, Printed: 8/8/2016 10:20 AM
Doc: KC:2004 20040102002182~53033
Page 151 of 380
Order: QuickView_Page 10 of 10 Requested By: james.isom, Printed: 8/8/2016 10:20 AM
Doc: KC:2004 20040102002182~53033
Page 152 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
Attachment E – Data Forms
Page 153 of 380
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
1379.0003 - Segal Site Auburn / King 05/08/2020
Dermody Properties WA DP-1
Ryan Krapp, Jake Layman 24 / 21N / 04E
Depression Concave 1
A2 47.300110 -122.23828201 WGS 84
Urban land N/A
Not all three wetland criteria observed; lack of wetland hydrology. In addition, much of the redox concentrations appeared to be
relic. Data plot excavated in prior-designated conservation easement area.
3
3
0 100%
Salix lasiandra 15 Yes FACW
Rosa nutkana 5 Yes FAC
20
Phalaris arundinacea 95 Yes FACW
95
0
5
Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the dominance test. Observed shrubs planted as part of wetland
mitigation project.
Page 154 of 380
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
DP-1
0 - 3 10YR 3/2 100 ----SiLo Silt loam
3 - 8 10YR 3/2 98 7.5YR 4/6 2 C M SiLo Silt loam
8 - 24 10YR 4/1 75 7.5YR 4/6 25 C M SiLo Silt loam; some concretions
None
--
Hydric soil criteria met through indicators A11 and F3; however, many of the redox concentrations were observed to
have hard edges rather than the gradual fading "halos" and as such are likely relic features.
None
None
None
No wetland hydrology indicators observed. Area appears to be effectively drained by a nearby culvert outlet.
Page 155 of 380
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
1379.0003 - Segal Site Auburn / King 05/08/2020
Dermody Properties WA DP-2
Jake Layman, Ryan Krapp 24 / 21N / 04E
Depression Concave 0
A2 47.299802 -122.23810261 WGS 84
Urban land N/A
Not all three wetland criteria observed; lack of wetland hydrology. In addition, much of the redox concentrations appeared to be
relic. Data plot excavated in prior-designated conservation easement area.
2
2
0 100%
0
Phalaris arundinacea 50 Yes FACW
Holcus lanatus 20 Yes FAC
Poa pratensis 15 No FAC
Trifolium pratense 10 No FACU
Cirsium arvense 5 No FAC
100
0
0
Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through the dominance test. Noticeable change in vegetation pattern; lower
growth species present.
Page 156 of 380
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
DP-2
0 - 4 10YR 3/2 100 ----SiLo Silt loam
4 - 7 10YR 3/2 98 7.5YR 4/6 2 C M SiLo Silt loam
7 - 22 10YR 3/2 80 7.5YR 4/6 15 C M SiLo Silt loam; some concretions
None
--
Hydric soil criteria met through indicator F6; however, many of the redox concentrations were observed to have hard
edges rather than the gradual fading "halos" and as such are likely relic features.
None
None
None
No wetland hydrology indicators observed.
Page 157 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
Attachment F – Qualifications
All field inspections, jurisdictional wetland determinations, habitat assessments, and supporting
documentation, including this Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment prepared for
the Segale Site Project, were prepared by, or under the direction of, Jon Pickett of SVC. In addition,
site inspections were performed by Ryan Krapp and Jake Layman, and report preparation was
completed by Jake Layman.
Jon Pickett
Associate Principal
Professional Experience: 10+ years
Jon Pickett is an Associate Principal and Senior Scientist with a diverse professional experience in
habitat development as a Regional Biologist and Environmental Project Manager, with an emphasis
in wetland restoration and enhancement. Jon has extensive experience successfully planning,
developing, securing funding, managing and implementing numerous large-scale wetland habitat
projects aimed at restoring the biological and physical functions of wetlands throughout California’s
Central Valley and Southern California. During this time, he managed a 2,200-acre private wetland
and upland habitat complex as a public trust resource for conservation and consumptive use. He
worked to ensure projects were designed and implemented to achieve habitat restoration goals,
including reclamation of wetland and floodplain habitats, reintroduction of aquatic complexity and
habitat, and reestablishment of riparian corridor.
Jon has worked with Federal and State agencies and private entities on land acquisitions for
conservational habitat and public use, including prioritizing acquisitions relative to value and
opportunity and funding. In addition, Jon has experience in regulatory coordination to ensure projects
operated in compliance with Federal, State and local environmental regulations, preparing permit
documentation, coordinating with all pertinent agencies and stakeholders, and developing and
maintaining appropriate permitting timelines to ensure timely approvals. He also oversaw earthwork
construction components and revegetation efforts, as well as post-project monitoring, with an
emphasis in native vegetation establishment and natural channel morphology.
Jon earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Natural Resource Sciences from Washington State
University and Bachelor of Science Minor in Forestry from Washington State University. Jon has
received 40-hour wetland delineation training (Western Mtns, Valleys, & Coast and Arid West
Regional Supplement) and has been formally trained in the use of the Washington State Wetland
Rating System, How to Determine the Ordinary High Water Mark, Using Field Indicators for Hydric
Soils, and the Using the Credit-Debit Method for Estimating Mitigation Needs.
Ryan Krapp
Environmental Scientist and Field Lead
Professional Experience: 11 years
Ryan Krapp is an Environmental Scientist and Field Lead with a background in conducting critical
habitat investigations, wetland delineations, botanical surveys, avian surveys, threatened & endangered
species surveys, and fisheries studies. He has considerable experience in production of Environmental
Assessments and Biological Assessments and Evaluations, under NEPA guidelines for projects
regulated by the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Bureau of Indian Affairs as
Page 158 of 380
1379.0003 Dermody Property – LogistiCenter at Auburn Soundview Consultants LLC
Wetland & Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment Revised July 7, 2020
well as leading Section 7 ESA consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Project planning,
permitting, and compliance are all part of his professional experiences and practices at SVC.
Ryan has managed environmental investigation projects including wetlands, streams, and critical
habitats data collection on large pipeline corridors, overhead electrical transmission corridors, and
oil/natural gas drilling development. He has extensive experience in utilizing GIS to collect, manage,
and analyze large volumes of spatial and temporal field data to aide in project management,
monitoring, analysis, and mapping. In addition, he is a FAA trained recreational pilot and a PADI
certified SCUBA diver with fresh and saltwater diving experience.
Jake Layman
Environmental Scientist
Professional Experience: 10+ years
Jake Layman is an Environmental Scientist with a varied background in fisheries, wildlife, and aquatic
invertebrate biology and stream and lake ecology. Jakes’s expertise includes endangered species
monitoring, lake limnology assessments, water chemistry profiles, off-channel habitat characterization,
laboratory management, and terrestrial and aquatic amphibian identification with associated habitat
assessments. Jake also has experience in fish population assessments, stream typing, spawning
escapement, environmental disaster recovery, and amphibian toxicology research. Jake has over 10
years of experience at the federal and state level conducting ecological monitoring surveys throughout
eastern and western Washington. He worked with the National Park Service to conduct environmental
compliance monitoring on park construction projects, infrastructure maintenance projects, and federal
highways projects. This position also included environmental spill response, fish exclusion surveys in
support of construction, and effectiveness monitoring on Engineered Log Jam (ELJ) projects. Jake
has worked with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to assess and
inventory fish passage barriers and monitor culvert removal projects throughout Western Washington.
While working for WDFW, Jake managed the daily operation for the intensive habitat study, on off-
channel wetlands, for the Chehalis Aquatic Resources Protection Plan (ASRP).
Jake earned Bachelor’s degrees in both Biology, with an Ecology specialization, and Geography, with
a Natural Resource Management specialization, from Central Washington University. In addition, Jake
also has a Minor in Environmental Studies and a Certificate in Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
and Cartography form Central Washington University. Jake has received training from the
Washington State Department of Ecology in Environmental Negotiations; Navigating SEPA, Conducting
Forage Fish Surveys, Puget Sound Coastal Processes, Shoreline Modifications, and Beach Restoration, and Using the
Marine Shoreline Design Guidelines for Marine Shoreline Stabilization. Jake has electro-fisher operation and
safety training from Smith-Root INC and Department of the Interior. (DOI).
Page 159 of 380
NOTICE OF APPLICATION (NOA)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (NOH) and
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
Logisticenter at Auburn
SEP19-0031 / CUP19-0003
The City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Application (NOA), Notice of Public Hearing (NOH), and
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the following described project. The permit applications
and listed studies may be reviewed at the Auburn Department of Community Development at 1 E
Main St., 2nd Floor, Customer Service Center, Auburn, WA 98001.
Proposal: Request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for 2 warehouses on a site within the M-2,
Heavy Industrial zoning district. The proposed buildings are approximately 157,400 sq. ft. and
172,500 sq. ft. in size.
Location: 901 C st., see Vicinity Map below. King Co. Parcel No. 242104-9001 and 242104-9054.
Notice of Application: January 30, 2020
Application Complete: January 21, 2020
Permit Application: October 18, 2019
File Nos. SEP19-0031
CUP19-0003
Owner: Auburn 8th Street LLC
PO Box 88028
Tukwila, WA 98138
Applicant: Dermody Properties
11900 NE 1st Street Suite 300
Bellevue, WA 98005
Applicant’s
Representative: Howard Jeng
Nelson Worldwide
1200 5th Ave Suite 1300
Seattle, WA 98101
Studies/Plans Submitted With Application:
Preliminary Civil Plans (1/17/2020)
Geotechnical Report (1/17/2020)
Traffic Impact Analysis (1/17/2020)
SEPA Checklist (12/4/2019)
Page 160 of 380
NOTICE OF APPLICATION, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, and DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
SEP19-0031 / CUP19-0003 (Continued)
Page 2 of 3
Other Permits, Plans, and Approvals Needed:
Building and Civil Permits
Statement of Consistency and List of Applicable Development Regulations: This proposal is
subject to and shall be consistent with the Auburn City Code, Comprehensive Plan, and Public
Works Design and Construction Standards.
Lead Agency: City of Auburn
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse
impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW
43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and
other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
Public Comment Period: This may be your only opportunity to comment on the environmental
impact of the proposal. All persons may comment on this application. This DNS is issued under
WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date issued
below. Comments must be in writing and submitted by 5:00 p.m. on February 14, 2020 to the
mailing address of 25 W Main St., Auburn, WA, 98001 or to the email address below. Any person
wishing to become a party of record, shall include in their comments that they wish to receive notice
of and participate in any hearings, if relevant, and request a copy of decisions once made.
Any person aggrieved of the City's determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City Clerk at 25
West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001within 14 days of the close of the comment period, or by 5:00
p.m. on February 28, 2020.
Public Hearing: The Hearing Examiner will conduct a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit
in the City Council Chambers, 25 W. Main St., Auburn, WA, 98001, on February 19, 2020 at 5:30
p.m.
Any interested person is invited to appear and express comments or opinions on the proposed
project. Written comments may be emailed to the contact person below, mailed attention to the
contact person below to 25 W. Main St., Auburn WA, 98001, or submitted at the public hearing.
For citizens with speech, sight, or hearing disabilities wishing to review documents pertaining to this
hearing should contact the person below within 10 calendar days prior to the hearing. Each request
will be considered individually according to the type of request, the availability of resources, and the
financial ability of the City to provide the requested services or equipment.
For questions regarding this project, please contact Jeremy Hammar, Planner, at
planning@auburnwa.gov or 253-288-4301.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jeff Tate
POSITION/TITLE: Director of Community Development
ADDRESS: 25 West Main Street
Auburn, Washington 98001
253-931-3090
DATE ISSUED: SIGNATURE:
January 30, 2020
Page 161 of 380
NOTICE OF APPLICATION, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, and DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
SEP19-0031 / CUP19-0003 (Continued)
Page 3 of 3
Note: This determination does not constitute approval of the proposal. Approval of the proposal can
only be made by the legislative or administrative body vested with that authority. The proposal is
required to meet all applicable regulations.
Vicinity Map
PROJECT SITE
15th ST SW
C St SW
Page 162 of 380
Conditional Use p. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
RE: Logisticenter
Conditional Use Permit
CUP19-0003
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW, AND DECISION
INTRODUCTION
The Applicant has applied for a conditional use permit to construct two warehouses
totaling 330,000 square feet at 901 C St. SW. The proposal is approved subject to
conditions.
ORAL TESTIMONY
Jeremy Hammar, City of Auburn Planner, summarized the staff report. Mr. Hammar
identified that the first page of the staff report has a typo in identifying the size of the
project as 11.72 acres. It should be 18.72 acres. In response to Examiner questions,
Mr. Hammar noted that the wetlands are located in the conservation easement with no
reduction in wetland buffer. Mr. Hammer clarified that any noises from the project
site would be addressed by the City’s noise ordinance.
Phillip Wood, Applicant, in response to examiner questions, stated that most of the
Applicant’s warehouses don’t operate 24/7. Typically there may be noise in the early
morning when trucks are loaded. The trucks are usually gone by 2:00 pm. Forklift
beepers are contained within the building. Some doors are open but usually they’re
closed unless a truck is backed up to it. The trucks have dock seals that they press
against so there’s not a lot of sound coming from inside the warehouse. Probably the
Page 163 of 380
Conditional Use p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
bigger sound is trucks backing up to the loading door. Doors might be left open late in
the summer to reduce interior heat. How the warehouse will be staffed depends upon
the type of tenant. It it’s an e-commerce tenant there would be lots of employees
handling packages.
EXHIBITS
All seven exhibits identified at page 12 of the February 5, 202 staff report were
admitted into the record during the February 19, 2020 hearing. The staff PowerPoint
presented by staff during the hearing was admitted as Exhibit 8.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Phil Wood, Dermody Properties (Contract Owner), 11900 NE
1st Street Suite 300, Bellevue, WA 98005.
2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application at
5:30 p.m. at Auburn City Hall in the Council Chambers on February 19, 2020.
Substantive:
3. Site/Proposal Description. The Applicant has applied for a conditional use
permit to construct two warehouses totaling 330,000 square feet on an 18.72 project
site located at 901 C St. SW. While the Site is referred to as “901 C St SW”, the Site
does not border the north-south aligned C St. SW. Instead, it has two access points to
public streets. The southeast corner of the site has a diagonal pipe stem portion of the
lot, connecting to C St. SW. Also, the northeast corner of the site borders the cul-de-
sac of the east-west aligned 8th St. SW, extending west from C St. SW.
4. Characteristics of the Area. Heavy industrial (M-2) property is located to
the west and south; Heavy Commercial (C-3) to the east and Light Industrial (M-1) to
the north. Surrounding uses are warehouses, vacant land, railroad tracks and a
Logistics Facility in the C-3 zoned property.
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the project.
A SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued on January 30, 2020.
Pertinent impacts are identified as follows:
A. Traffic. The proposal will not create any significant traffic impacts. Access to
the site will be provided by driveways on ‘C’ St. SW and 8th St. SW (which
connects directly to ‘C’ St. SE) to meet International Fire Code (IFC)
requirements for access. C St. SW is designated a principal arterial and also a
local truck route within the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan. ‘C’ St.
Page 164 of 380
Conditional Use p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SW has a direct connection to SR 18 and connects to SR 167 (via 15th Ave
SW). as well. Having the potential warehouse located on a principal arterial
designated road which is also part of the City’s truck route assists in limiting
impacts to lesser classifications of public streets.
Trip generation and Levels of Service (LOS) is included in the Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) (Exhibit 7) and indicates that off-site intersections included in
the study (as coordinated with the City’s Senior Traffic Engineer) will continue
to operate at an LOS C or better. No additional traffic mitigatio n measures are
necessitated. which is in conformance with adopted level of service standards
as outlined in Table 2-5 of the transportation element of the City of Auburn
Comprehensive Plan. The project will not lower level of service for any
affected intersection. Proportionate share system-wide impacts will be
mitigated by the payment of transportation impact fees assessed during building
permit review. No additional traffic mitigation measures are necessitated.
B. Aesthetics. Given landscaping requirements and the location of the project
amongst industrial and heavy commercial uses, the proposal is adequately
designed as conditioned to avoid aesthetic impacts. Refuse and service areas
will be located internal to the site and adequately screened with fencing and
vegetation, consistent with ACC 18.50.040(5)(a). Utility facility locations (e.g.
PSE) are not known at this time, however, they will be coordinated with the site
landscaping to ensure they are adequately screened, as conditioned. A
minimum 10-ft. landscape strip will be required adjacent to 15th St. SW and
perimeter landscaping around the building will help ensure the building
maintains visual interest and helps to soften the façades. A minimum of 10% of
the site must be landscaped, consistent with Chapter 18.50 ACC. Per ACC
18.57.020(C)(1)(b) any dock doors shall either not be visible from the street, or
an additional 10 ft. of landscaping abutting the street is required. A perspective
view drawing will be required along with future submittals to ensure this
requirement is met, as conditioned.
C. Noise, Odor, lighting. The proposal will not create any significant noise, odor
or lighting impacts.
According to the staff report, the project isn’t located near any noise sensitive
land uses, although there is a hotel located 315 feet from the northwest corner
of the site. Staff and the applicant were not able to provide direct assurance
during the hearing that noises from the warehouse would not be audible from
the hotel. However, as testified by the Applicant, any noise generated by the
project site would likely be limited to morning hours. There is also another
warehouse located a similar distance from the hotel and its activity did not
compel the hotel owners to present any concerns over noise impacts. Given
that the City has a noise ordinance in place to prohibit any unreasonable noise
levels, the limited scope of noise impacts, the industrial and heavy commercial
Page 165 of 380
Conditional Use p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
character of the surrounding area and the lack of concern expressed by the hotel
owners, it is determined that the proposal will not create any significant noise
impacts.
Light impacts were not addressed in the administrative record. ACC
18.55.020A requires lighting plans for projects requiring conditional use
permits. Chapter 18.55 ACC includes numerous lighting requirements
designed to prevent undue light spillage on adjoining properties. To adequately
mitigate light impacts, a condition of approval requires the submission and
approval of a lighting plan for the proposal.
Odor impacts were also not addressed in the administrative record. Although it
is possible that a tenant such as a seafood company could store items that create
odors, that situation appears unlikely and, in any event, surrounding uses are
not sensitive to reasonable project odors. For this reason, it is determined that
the proposal will not create any significant odor impacts. However, the
proposal is construed as not including any significant odor generating uses.
Should such a use be proposed, the proposal shall be considered amended,
subject to the amendment process identified in Condition No. 1 such that any
unreasonable odors can be mitigated by staff.
D. Compatibility. The proposal is fully compatible with its surrounding industrial
and heavy commercial uses and is ideally situated given its access to a truck
route and SR 167. Staff have compared the proposed building elevations to
other uses in the area and found them to “not be physically out of character
with other properties and uses in the vicinity.”
E. Public Facilities and Services. In uncontested findings, the staff report
concludes that the proposal will be served by adequate public services and
facilities. Given also that transportation facilities have been found to currently
meet City level of service standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5A,
the project is found to be served by adequate public services and facilities.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. Both ACC 14.03.030(G) and 18.64.020(B)
grant the Hearing Examiner with the authority to review and issue final decisions on
conditional use permits applications.
Substantive:
Page 166 of 380
Conditional Use p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2. Zoning Designation. M-2, Heavy Industrial
3. Review Criteria and Application. ACC Table 18.32.030 requires a
conditional use permit for warehousing and distribution uses in the M-2 zoning district.
The criteria for a conditional use permit are governed by ACC 18.64.040, which are
quoted below and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
ACC 18.64.040(A): The use will have no more adverse effect on the health, safety or
comfort of persons living or working in the area and will be no more injurious,
economically or otherwise, to property or improvements in the surrounding area than
would any use generally permitted in the district. Among matters to be considered are
traffic flow and control, access to and circulation within the property, off-street
parking and loading, refuse and service area, utilities, screening and buffering, signs,
yards and other open spaces, height, bulk, and location of structures, location of
proposed open space uses, hours and manner of operation, and noise, lights, dust,
odor, fumes and vibration;
4. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, there are no
significant adverse impacts associated with the project and it is compatible with the
property and improvements in the surrounding area. Most of the factors identified in
the criterion above are addressed in FOF No. 5. City staff have found the proposal as
currently detailed to be in compliance with applicable bulk and dimensional
requirements and final compliance will be determined during building permit review.
Hours of operation are not a significant consideration given the absence of any
sensitive land uses in the area. The record does not contain any information on signs,
but any placement of signs would require a sign permit under the ACC that assures
consistency with sign requirements and compatibility with adjoining uses.
ACC 18.64.040(B): The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The criterion is met. The project is consistent with applicable
comprehensive plan policies as discussed at page 6-9 of the staff report.
ACC 18.64.040(C): The proposal complies with all requirements of this title.
6. The criterion is met. The project is consistent with applicable zoning code
requirements as determined in page 10 of the staff report.
ACC 18.64.040(D): The proposal can be constructed and maintained so as to be
harmonious and appropriate in design, character and appearance with the existing or
intended character of the general vicinity.
Page 167 of 380
Conditional Use p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5D, the project is
compatible with surrounding properties, which includes design, character and
appearance.
ACC 18.64.040(E): The proposal will not adversely affect the public infrastructure.
8. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5E, the project
is served by adequate public infrastructure.
ACC 18.64.040(F): The proposal will not cause or create a public nuisance.
9. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no
adverse impacts associated with the project. No nuisance is anticipated.
DECISION
Based upon the application and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the
conditional use permit is approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. The site plan that was formally submitted with the Conditional Use Permit
Application is hereby incorporated into the decision. Any modifications to the site
plan shall meet the following requirements of Chapter 18.64 ACC:
Minor Adjustments. Minor adjustments to the site plan may be made
and approved by the planning director or designee. Minor adjustments are
those which may affect the precise dimensions or siting of buildings, but
which do not affect the basic character or arrangement of buildings
approved, nor the development coverage of the development or the open
space requirements. Such dimensional adjustments shall not vary more than
10 percent from the original.
Major Adjustments. Major adjustments are those, when determined by
the planning director or designee that substantially change the basic design,
coverage, open space or other requirements of the permit. When the
planning director or designee determines a change constitutes a major
adjustment, no building or other permit shall be issued for the use without
prior review and approval such adjustment.
The submittal requirements, and review and approval process for a
major adjustment to the site plan of an approved administrative or
conditional use permit shall be substantially the same as that required for
the original administrative or conditional use permit. An application for
major adjustment meeting the information requirements of ACC 18.64.030
shall be submitted. At the discretion of the planning director or designee,
the applicant may be able to resubmit or incorporate by reference some
portions of the original administrative or conditional use permit submittal as
Page 168 of 380
Conditional Use p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
part of the application for major adjustment; however, the application for
major adjustment shall be subject to the same submittal, processing, and
findings of fact requirements of this chapter for administrative or
conditional use permits, as applicable.
2. All above ground utility facilities shall be visually screened with landscaping that
provides year-round screening from the public way, including the Interurban Trail.
The landscaping plans shall propose an approach that can be implemented where
above ground utility features cannot be predicted in advance.
3. A submittal such as a perspective-view drawing shall be submitted showing the
view from the right-of-way and Interurban Trail to the location of the dock doors
on the buildings. This drawing will be used to ensure the project meets ACC
18.57.020(C)(1)(b).
4. A lighting plan in conformance with Chapter 18.55 ACC shall be provided at the
time of building permit application for review and approval by City planning staff
prior to building permit issuance.
Dated this 24th day of February 2020.
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
This decision is final subject to appeal to superior court as governed by Chapter 36.70C
RCW. Appeals must be filed and served within 21 days of issuance of this decision as
required by RCW 36.70C.040.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
Page 169 of 380
Page 170 of 380
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
HEARING EXAMINER
Agenda Subject/Title:
PLT18-0001, The Summit at Kendall
Ridge Preliminary Plat
Date:
August 3, 2020
Department:
Community Development
DESCRIPTION:
Preliminary plat application to subdivide approximately 4.5 acres into 17 single-family residential
lots and 6 tracts in the R-5, Residential Zoning District.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION:
Hearing Examiner to conduct a public hearing and approve the preliminary plat of Summit at
Kendall Ridge with 32 conditions, and associated Critical Areas Variance (City File No. 19) and
Engineering Deviation request(s) (City File Nos. DEV18-0017, DEV19-0031, DEV19-0034, and
DEV19-0057).
PROJECT SUMMARY:
Preliminary plat application to subdivide approximately 4.5 acres into 17 single-family residential
lots. The site is zoned R-5, Residential, which allows 4-5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed
lots range in size from 4,370 square feet (sq. ft.) to 5,697 sq. ft. The plat will extend a new public
road (“Road A”) approximately 615 feet east of 133rd Ave. SE which will terminate in a cul-de-
sac. Another new public road (Road B) and one shared access and utility tract (E) will extend off
of Road A. Another shared access and utility tract (Tract D) will extend off of Road B.
Stormwater will be managed on-site via one private stormwater detention pond (Tract B) and
one stormwater detention vault (Tract C). Water and sewer will be extended through the site to
serve each lot. An existing wetland and its associated buffer, and a geologic hazard area will be
placed into separate tracts (Tract A and Tract F, respectively).
LOCATION:
The project site is located west of 132nd Ave. S and north of SE 306th St., within NW ¼ of Section
10, Township 21, Range 5. King County Assessor Parcel Nos. 1021059059 and 1021059095.
APPLICANT(S):
Matt Weber, PE, Principal, AHBL, Inc., 2215 N 30th St., Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98403
Sheri Green, Project Administrator, AHBL, Inc., 2215 N 30th St., Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403
PROPERTY OWNER(S):
Phil Mitchell, Mitchell Development II, LLC, 910 Traffic Ave., Sumner, WA 98390
Page 171 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 2 of 34
Summary of Staff Recommendations:
Preliminary Plat: Staff recommends the preliminary plat be approved, with conditions.
Critical Areas Variance: Staff recommends the Variance request to reduce the wetland buffer
be approved, with no conditions.
Deviation Requests: The City Engineer recommends conditional approval of the engineering
Deviation Requests, with conditions.
Subject Property and Adjacent Property Comprehensive Plan Designation, Zoning
Classification and Current Land Use:
Comprehensive
Plan Designation Zoning Classification Current Land Use
Project Site Single-Family
Residential
R-5 Residential; Lea Hill
Overlay Single family residence;
North
Single-Family
Residential; Light
Commercial
R-5 Residential; C-1
Light Commercial; Lea
Hill Overlay
Single-Family Residences;
Mini-storage facility
South Single-Family
Residential
R-5 Residential; R-1
Residential; Lea Hill
Overlay
Single-Family Residences
East Single-Family
Residential
R-5 Residential; Lea Hill
Overlay Single-Family Residences
West Single-Family
Residential
R-5 Residential; Lea Hill
Overlay Single-Family Residences
Page 172 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 3 of 34
Excerpted Zoning Map:
Excerpted Comprehensive Plan Map:
Page 173 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 4 of 34
2019 Aerial Vicinity Map:
Street Layout Map:
Page 174 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 5 of 34
SEPA STATUS:
A combined Notice of Application and SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was
issued under City File No. SEP18-0007 on October 17, 2019, see Exhibit 4. The notices were
posted at the Site, mailed to property owners within 300 ft. of the Site, and published in The
Seattle Times newspaper. The comment period ended November 1, 2019 and the appeal period
ended November 15, 2019. The four comment(s) received along with the City responses are
included as Exhibit 6. No appeal of the SEPA decision was received.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
Preliminary Plat Findings
1. Matt Weber, Principal, with AHBL, Inc., on behalf of Kenneth Teague, original Property
Owner, submitted a Preliminary Plat application and associated SEPA application on May 7,
2018 to subdivide approximately 4.5 acres (referred to in this Staff Report as the “Site”) into
a 20-lot single-family residential subdivision.
2. On April 17, 2018, Matt Weber, on behalf of new property owner Mitchell Development II,
LLC, resubmitted the Preliminary Plat application and associated SEPA application to
subdivide the Site into 17 single-family residential lots, two new public roads (Roads A and
B), two private access and utility tracts (Tracts D and E), one private stormwater detention
pond (Tract B), one stormwater detention vault (Tract C) and two critical areas tracts (Tracts
A and F), referred to in this Staff Report as the “Project”.
3. The Site consists of two parcels and is located in the Lea Hill portion of the City, between
132nd Ave. SE to the west and Highway (Hwy) 18 to the east, and approximately 479 ft.
north of the intersection of SE 306th Ave. SE and 133rd Ave. SE. The Site is located within
the City of Auburn’s corporate limits, and referenced by King County Tax Assessor Parcel
Nos. 1021059059 and 1021059095.
4. The Site currently has one single-family home and several existing accessory structures.
The home and associated accessory structures will be demolished. The Site is currently
served by an existing on-site septic system and City water. The Applicant will be required to
make application for a demolition permit for the existing house, which will require the
abandonment of the on-site septic system and the water meter at the water main in 132nd
Ave. SE.
5. The Site is rectangular in shape, as shown and dimensioned here:
Page 175 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 6 of 34
6. The Site has a Comprehensive Plan designation of “Single Family Residential” and is
currently zoned R-5, Residential, Five Dwelling Units Per Acre, which has a density range of
between 4 and 5 dwelling units per acre. The site is approximately 4.5 acres, which in
accordance with the density calculation would require between 18 and 22.5 (rounded to 23
per Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.02.065(A)(1)(a)) lots. The Project proposes 3.8 dwelling
units per acre. Per ACC 18.02.065(A)(5) a project may request to deviate from the required
density if encumbrances such as critical area or similar features are encountered. More
specifically, ACC 18.02.065(A)(5) provides:
“Where a proposed area for subdivision cannot meet the minimum density due to
encumbrance by critical areas, critical area buffers, or other similar types of
features that preclude development, the applicant may seek to deviate from the
minimum density which will be reviewed as an administrative decision as part of
the subdivision application. If the applicant seeks a variance from the
development standards in Chapter 18.07 ACC the variance shall be processed
utilizing the provisions of ACC 18.70.010. Alterations of a critical area or its buffer
shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 16.10 ACC. Compliance with the
density requirements of the underlying zone shall not be used as justification for
alteration of a critical area.”
An approximately 0.63-acre wetland and its associated buffer exists on the western portion
of the Site and an approximately 0.84-acre geologic hazard areas exists on the eastern
portion of the Site. Both the wetland and its associated buffer and the geologic hazard area
are considered critical areas per Chapter 16.10 “Critical Areas” of the Auburn City Code.
The combined area of these critical areas equates to approximately 1.47 acres. Subtracting
the acreage of critical areas from the gross acreage (4.5) yields approximately 3.03 acres of
developable area (not including right-of-way (ROW), storm pond tracts, and other
492 ft.
462 ft. 319 ft. 302 ft. Page 176 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 7 of 34
easements). On April 25, 2019, the applicant’s representative submitted a request to deviate
from the minimum required density (Exhibit 13). Per the aforementioned Code section, this
Deviation from the minimum density standard request is an administrative decision made by
the Community Development Director during the preliminary plat application process. The
Director has reviewed this request, and based upon the noted encumbrance(s), approves
the Deviation.
7. The western portion of the Site, is relatively flat. Per the Geotechnical Response Letter and
Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 10), The majority of the sloping occurs on the eastern portion
of the Site. Slopes in the eastern portion of the Site have inclinations between 15 to 40%
percent with underlying soils consisting of glacial till. The steepest slope on the Site is
approximately 2:1 and is located in the southeastern portion of the Site and is noted as
“erosion prone” under the City’s critical area inventory mapping system. Per Chapter 16.10
ACC slopes of 15 and 40% underlain with glacial till as a Class II/Moderate Landslide
Hazard Area. The area containing the geologic hazard area (approximately 0.84 acres) will
be placed into a separate tract (Tract F). A 15 ft. buffer will extend from the top of slope onto
proposed lots no. 14, 15, 16, and 17. Tract F and the 15 ft. buffer will be placed in a
conservation easement.
Isolated areas of the Class II Landslide Hazard are proposed to be altered to accommodate
the stormwater detention vault and associated flow control structures within Tract C and
Tract D. ACC 16.10.100(E)(2)(c) lists the requirements for altering a Class II Landslide
Hazard Area. The Applicant has provided the City with adequate information to show that
risks associated with the alterations will be in conformance with the City’s Critical Areas
code and Engineering Design Standards. The altered areas are proposed to be revegetated.
Reference the Geotechnical Response Letter and Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 10), and
Sheet C4.0 of the Preliminary Civil Plans (Exhibit 7). Final design for altering and
revegetating the Class II Landslide Hazard areas will be reviewed during the FAC (civil plan)
review phase.
Contours Map (10 ft. intervals)
Page 177 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 8 of 34
8. The Site is located within Groundwater Protection Zone 4, the least stringent classification.
Therefore no impacts are anticipated that cannot be mitigated by utilizing Best Management
Practices (BMPs).
9. Per Wetland Delineation Report (Exhibit 8), one 15,507 sq. ft. Category III wetland exists on
site (wetland category rating is vested to Ordinance No. 5894, adopted 2005). The wetland
will be placed into a separate tract (Tract A) on the final plat map and encumbered by a
conservation easement as conditioned below. This tract is inclusive of the wetland’s buffer
shown on Sheet C4.1 of the Preliminary Civil Plans (Exhibit 7). A draft Critical Area
Mitigation Plan (enhancement plan) for the wetland buffers is also shown on Sheet C4.1. A
final enhancement plan will be reviewed with the future submittal of the Public Facility
Extension (FAC) (civil) plans for the Project.
As shown on Sheet C4.1 of the Preliminary Civil Plans (Exhibit 7), approximately 467 sq. ft.
of the on-site buffer and 476 sq. ft. of the off-site buffer will be eliminated to accommodate
the construction of public Road A. The eliminated buffer equates to an approximately 23 ft.
reduction in the required buffer. Since the 23 ft. buffer reduction exceeds 10 percent of the
requirement, a minimum 25 ft. buffer, a Type III Critical Areas Variance is required. The
applicant applied for a Critical Areas Variance (Type III decision) (Exhibit 14). Staffs’ finding,
analysis, and recommendation for the Type III Critical Areas Variance is under the “Critical
Areas Variance Conclusions” below.
10. The Site is not located within any shoreline designation.
11. The Site is not located in the regulatory floodplain per Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) maps.
12. No state or federal candidate threatened or endangered plant or animal species or habitat
has been identified on the Site.
13. The Project is subject to the zoning development standards for the R-5 zoning district in
effect at the time the Project application was considered “Complete” (i.e. vested). Per ACC
18.07.030 the zoning development standards for the R-5 zoning district include:
• Minimum lot area: 4,500 square feet
• Minimum lot width: 50 feet
• Lot cot coverage: 40%
• Impervious surface: 65%
• Maximum building height: 35 feet
• Minimum yard setbacks:
o Front: 10 feet
o Side, interior: 5 feet
o Side, street: 10 feet
o Rear: 20 feet
14. On May 7, 2018 Matt Weber and Sheri Green, representing Phil Mitchell of Mitchell
Development II, LLC applied for an Administrative Variance to reduce the minimum lot area
of proposed lots no. 3, 4, and 7, and to reduce the minimum lot width for proposed lots no.
4, 5, and 7 within the Summit of Kendall Ridge preliminary plat. Per ACC18.70.015(A)(1)(a),
an administrative variance for lot area and lot width is an administrative decision made by
the Community Development Director during the preliminary plat application process. The
Page 178 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 9 of 34
Director has reviewed this request, and based upon the noted encumbrance(s) within the
request letter, approves the Administrative Variance. The Administrative Variance Decision
Letter and Staff report are provided in Exhibit 16.
15. Per ACC 18.52.020 two off-street parking spaces per single family residence is required.
16. Road A will be extended approximately 615 ft. off of 133rd Ave. SE, through the Site. Based
on the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Functional Roadway Classification Map,
Road A will be a public “Local Residential” street. Therefore, Road A will be constructed with
full half-street improvements meeting “Local Residential” standards, and terminate in a cul-
de-sac. The construction of Road A will include the conversion of Tract K a private access
tract within the adjacent Kendall Ridge plat (reference the Kendall Ridge plat Map in Exhibit
17). Tract K though dedication to the Kendall Ridge homeowner’s association (HOA) was
reserved for the benefit of the off-site owners to the east, until such time the City of Auburn
requests a deed for public roadway purposes. Road B will extend off of Road A, and will be
constructed with full street improvements meeting “local residential” standards, and
terminate in a cul-de-sac. One new private access and utility tract will extend off of Road A
(Tract E) and another will extend off of Road B (Tract D). One emergency vehicle access
and private drive will extend off of Road A and connect to 132nd Ave. SE. The emergency
vehicle and private drive will be constructed within a 30 ft. ingress, egress, and utility
easement located along the rear of lots no. 86 through 90 of Kendall Ridge subdivision. For
full size plans, reference the Preliminary Civil Plans (Exhibit 7). The Site is located within the
utility service areas of, and will be served by, City of Auburn for public water and sewer. City
public water and sewer service will be extended from the cul-de-sac of SE 306th St., through
an approximately 28.5 ft. utility easement located within a recreation and stormwater tract
(Tract E) of Kendall Ridge subdivision, through the Site.
17. Two stormwater treatment and flow control facilities will be constructed on site. As provided
in the Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan (Exhibit 11) the majority of the existing stormwater
runoff sheet flows to the east edge of the Site and down the slope toward Highway (Hwy)
18. The remainder of the stormwater runoff sheet flows toward the west side of the Site,
providing for two drainage sub-basins on site. Due to elevation constraints near the existing
wetland, stormwater runoff from the proposed roadways will be conveyed to the stormwater
facility within the eastern sub-basin, the stormwater vault. As a result the west sub-basin will
decrease by approximately 0.762 acres and the eastern sub-basin will increase by 0.899
acres. However, two stormwater drainage facilities have been appropriately sized to
accommodate the flow characteristics of the each sub-basin consistent with the Department
of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) and
Auburn Supplements.
Stormwater treatment and flow control in the western-sub basin will be managed through a
stormwater detention pond within Tract B. Stormwater from the stormwater detention pond
will be discharged to the Category III Wetland within Tract A. The stormwater pond is
proposed to be owned and maintained by the future HOA. Stormwater treatment and flow
control facilities in the eastern sub-basin will consist of a stormwater vault and associated
structures, including a modular wetland, control structure, and emergency overlay structure
located within Tract C. Stormwater from the stormwater detention vault will be discharged
down the steep slope within Tract D through an overland pipe into an existing ditch that
flows south along Hwy 18. The stormwater detention vault is proposed to be publically
dedicated at the time of final plat.
Page 179 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 10 of 34
18. To mitigate temporary noise impacts associated with the Project, all construction shall occur
between the hours of 7am and 7pm on weekdays, and between 9am and 6pm on Saturday
and Sunday as required per ACC 8.28.010(B)(8) unless a work hour exception is requested
and approved as provided in this same code section.
19. To mitigate increased demand for parks created by the Project, the current park impact fee
shall be assessed at the time of building permit issuance in accordance with Chapter 19.08
ACC ‘Parks Impact Fees’.
20. To mitigate increased demand for schools created by the Project, the current school impact
fee shall be assessed at the time of building permit issuance in accordance with Chapter
19.02 ACC ‘School Impact Fees’.
21. To mitigate increased demand for fire/emergency services generated by the Project,
payment of the fire impact fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance is required in
accordance with Chapter 19.06 ACC ‘Fire Impact Fees’.
22. To mitigate increased PM peak hour trips generated by the Project, a traffic impact fee in
accordance with the City of Auburn Traffic Impact Fee Schedule shall be assessed at
building permit issuance in accordance with Chapter 19.04 ACC ‘Transportation Impact
Fees’.
23. A Notice of Public Hearing was issued on August 6, 2020 (Exhibit 5). The notice was posted
at the Site, mailed to property owners within 300 ft. of the Site, and published in The Seattle
Times newspaper.
24. In response to the public notices the City received four comment letters from four different
parties as of August 3, 2020 (the date this Staff Report was finalized) on the project. The
following list is Staff’s abbreviated summary of the comment(s) along with a short summary
of the City’s response, if one was necessitated. The comment and response is included as
Exhibit 6.
a. Kendall Ridge Homeowner’s Association (HOA): expressed concerns regarding the
amount of increased traffic and noise through Kendall Ridge, and requested that new
17-lot plat should connect to 132nd Ave. SE instead of 133rd Ave. SE. The HOA also
commented that the critical areas variance for wetland buffer should not be granted
citing enough of the wetland has already been impacted.
City Response: Staff’s response stated that the ingress/egress easement that
connects the project to 132nd Ave SE is of insufficient width; 5 ft. of the easement is
encumbered by a private drainage easement and cannot be built in. The applicant
requested a deviation from the City’s engineering design standards to reduce the
width of the half-street improvements to fit within the available 30 ft. Tract K will be
converted into right-of-way (ROW ) as noted on the Kendall Ridge Plat Map (Exhibit
15) which states that Tract K shall be owned by the Kendall Ridge HOA until such
time as the City of Auburn requests a deed to the public for roadway purposes.
Lastly, whenever possible the City requires and/or recommends connectivity
between adjacent subdivisions. Similar to the development for Kendall Ridge
subdivision, the wetland and its associated buffer will be placed into a separate tract
(Tract A), encumbered by a native growth protection easement that will be inclusive
Page 180 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 11 of 34
of its buffer. The construction of the new local residential public road will result in the
reduction of a portion of the wetland buffer. Since the wetland buffer spans the
subject project as well as the Kendall Ridge plat, buffer reduction will occur both on-
site, and off-site with the conversion of Tract K into ROW.
b. Sandy Austin: commented that in the event that her property develops that water
and sewer extensions be stubbed to her property.
City Response: staff forwarded her comment to the applicant’s representative.
c. Jason McKinney: provided a number of comments including: 1) increasing the
number of daily trips on 133rd Ave. SE, 2) maintaining the existing continuous
pedestrian corridor at the existing northern terminus of 133rd Ave. SE by striping a
marked crosswalk, 3) conducting a sight distance analysis for the “connection” at
133rd Ave. SE and the potential need for traffic control measures, 4) permitting 17
lots off of a “panhandle access”, and 5) contacting the Kendall Ridge HOA regarding
the conversion of Tract K into ROW.
City Response: Staff provided the following responses: 1) 133rd Ave SE is classified
as a local residential road. Per the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan, a local
residential road is intended to accommodate between 200 to 1,200 vehicles per day
average daily traffic; 2) Whenever possible the City requires and/or recommends
connectivity between adjacent subdivisions and it is the City policy is to not mark
crosswalks at uncontrolled (e.g. no stop signs, no traffic signal, etc.) intersections; 3)
The additional traffic generated by the proposed 17-lot subdivision, would not exceed
the capacity of the existing roadway, therefore, no mitigation is required; 4) ACC
17.10.120(B)(3) is not applicable because a new public road is being created; and 5)
Tract K will be converted into ROW as noted on the Kendall Ridge Plat (enclosed)
which states that Tract K shall be owned by the Kendall Ridge HOA until such time
as the City of Auburn requests a deed to the public for roadway purposes.
d. David Terry: requested that new 17-lot plat should connect to 132nd Ave. SE instead
of 133rd Ave. SE and that the access on 133rd Ave. SE would increase noise and
traffic in Kendall Ridge community. He also commented that the house next to Tract
K will lose their fence during conversion of Tract K into ROW.
City Response: Staff responded that a portion of the gravel road is within an
ingress/egress easement of which the underlying property belongs to the property
owner to the north (i.e. Raceway Mini Storage). No ingress/egress easement can be
converted into public ROW without consent of the private property owner. Therefore
the new road cannot connect to 132nd Ave. SE for "pass-thru traffic". Staff also
forwarded Mr. Terry's comment concerning the fence to the applicant's
representative.
Critical Areas Variance Findings
25. The Applicant has requested a Type III Critical Areas Variance for reduction of an on-site
and off-site minimum buffer width of a Category III wetland within the Project:
Page 181 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 12 of 34
ACC 16.10.080(E)(1) under Ordinance No. 5894 (adopted 2005)
26. The Applicant has prepared a written statement supporting the Variance criteria found in
ACC 16.10.160, see Exhibit 14. The Applicant has requested to reduce a portion of the 25-
foot on-site and off-site buffer by 23 ft. (reference sheet C4.1 of the Preliminary Civil Plans).
On-site, a minimum of approx. six feet of buffer between the road and the wetland will
remain. Off-site, per the Kendall Ridge Plat Map (Exhibit 17), it appears that the wetland
buffer will abut the road.
27. Per ACC 16.10.160, critical areas variance requests from the requirements of Chapter 16.10
‘Critical Area’ ACC are to be heard and decided upon by the Hearing Examiner. The
Hearing Examiner may approve with or without conditions.
Engineering Deviation Findings
28. The applicant submitted a request for a “deviation” from the City of Auburn Engineering
Design Standards (COADS), the City of Auburn Surface Water Management Manual (COA
SWMM), and the City of Auburn Construction Standards – Part 2 – Standard Details (COA
Standard Details) for the following:
a. City File No. DEV18-0017 (Exhibit 15):
• Cul-de-sacs (COADS Section 10.02.10.3): Approval to increase in the
maximum number of dwelling units allowed at the end of streets with a dead
end cul-de-sac.
• Cul-de-sacs (COADS Section 10.02.10.3): Approval to increase in the
maximum length of a dead end street.
• Local Residential Cross Section (COADS Ch. 10, Table 10-1): Approval to
reduce in the minimum right-of-way width and roadway section.
• Local Residential Cross Sections (COADS Ch. 10, Table 10-1): Approval to
reduce the minimum horizontal curve radius on local residential streets.
b. City File No. DEV19-0031 (Exhibit 15):
• Clear Zone – Lateral Separation (COADS 10.17): Approval of public right-of-
way improvements, including a public local residential street serving the
proposed plat development, abutting an existing property line fence that is
located within the clear zone for the proposed public local residential street.
• Access Tract Improvements (COADS 10.01.6): Approval of a private access
tract for the proposed preliminary plat with required tract improvements
terminating six feet from the end of the proposed access tract.
c. City File No. DEV19-0034 (Exhibit 15):
Wetland Category Minimum Buffer Width Maximum Buffer Width
(see subsection (E)(1)(g) of
this section)
Category I 100 feet 200 feet
Category II 50 feet 100 feet
Category III 25 feet (emphasis added) 50 feet
Category IV 25 feet 30 feet
Page 182 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 13 of 34
• Construction of a Stormwater Detention Vault (COA SWMM Vol. III, Ch.
3.2.3): Approval of the construction of a detention vault located on a tract
proposed for dedication to the City.
d. City File No. DEV19-0057 (Exhibit 15):
• Local Residential – Local Streets (COADS 10.01.3.1): Approval to increase
the slope adjacent to the right-of-way above the required 2:1 slope by
installing a retaining wall to support the sidewalk.
• Private Street (COA Standard Detail T-15): Approval to build a non-standard
sidewalk cross-section to accommodate a retaining wall located in the right of
way.
29. Deviations from the COADS and Standard Details are subject to approval of the Hearing
Examiner per ACC 17.18.010(A) and COADS 1.04 which state (emphasis added):
“ACC 17.18.010(A). The hearing examiner may approve a modification of any standard
or specification established or referenced by Chapter 17.14 ACC or established or
referenced in the city’s design standards or construction standards, upon making the
findings of fact in ACC 17.18.030; provided, that the hearing examiner shall obtain the
concurrence of the city engineer for any requests to modify any city of Auburn design or
construction standard.”
“COADS 1.04. For deviation applications that are associated with a preliminary plat
application submitted in compliance with Chapter 17.10 ACC, the deviation application
and a recommendation from the City Engineer must accompany the preliminary plat to
the hearing examiner.”
30. Volume III, Ch. 3.2.3 of the City of Auburn Surface Water Management Manual (SWMM)
indicates that all proposed detention vaults require approval from the City Engineer through
the deviation process outlined in Chapter 1 of the COADS.
31. The City Engineer’s recommendation for each deviation is included under ‘Conclusions’
below.
32. In support of deviations to Road A, contained in City File No. DEV18-0017, the Valley
Regional Fire Authority recommended that all homes in the plat must include fire sprinkler
systems, which has been conditioned below.
CONCLUSIONS:
Preliminary Plat Conclusions
Per ACC 14.03.030, a preliminary plat is a Type III Decision which are quasi-judicial final
decisions made by the Hearing Examiner. ACC 17.10.070 ‘Findings of Fact’ lists the approval
criteria for a preliminary plat. A comparison of the project’s relationship to subdivision approval
criteria are as follows (in italics) followed by a Staff analysis:
Page 183 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 14 of 34
A. 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 schools;
Staff Analysis: No adverse impacts to the public health, safety and general welfare are
anticipated from the proposed subdivision. Staff offers the following analysis of each of
subcategory listed in this criterion:
Open Spaces: The Project is not subject to any park dedication, open space, or clustering
requirements under Title 18 ‘Zoning’ or Title 17 ‘Land Adjustments and Divisions’.
Drainage Ways: No existing drainage ways appear to be located on the Site. Through the
civil plan review process, the stormwater runoff from the Project will be evaluated, treated,
and detained within either the private stormwater pond in Tract B and/or the stormwater
detention vault within Tract C, per the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management
Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW ) and Auburn Supplements.
Streets, Alleys, other Public Ways: The following roadways will be constructed concurrent
with the plat:
1. Road A will be extended, west to east, from the Kendall Ridge Subdivision into the
Site. The extended road will terminate in a cul-de-sac. Road A will feature a 22 ft.
paved width, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street lighting on one side. The other side of
Road A will feature a landscape strip ranging in width to approx. 0.76 ft. – 5 ft. and a
0.5 ft. temporary barrier curb in anticipation of future full street improvements. The City
Engineer recommends approval for a deviation request (City File No. DEV18-0017)
from the COADS to reduce in the minimum right of way width and roadway section. No
parking will be allowed along Road A. Three lots (proposed lots No. 11, 16, and 17)
will take access from this road. Also, in response to comments provided in ’Finding of
Fact’ No. 24, the applicant proposes to place traffic calming measures on Road A, east
of where Road A turns into 133rd Ave. SE, to reduce vehicle speeds to meet sight
distance standards. As conditioned below, prior to City approval of the civil plans under
the FAC, the applicant will need to demonstrate that the proposed traffic calming
measures will adequately reduce vehicle speeds to meet sight distance standards as
determined by the City Engineer.
2. Road B is a public road that will extend perpendicular off of Road A. Road B will
terminate in cul-de-sac and feature full-street improvement’s including a paved width of
28 ft., and curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, and landscape strips on both sides of
the road. Four lots (proposed lots no. 1, 8, 9, and 10) will take access from this private
access tract. Road B will be marked no parking.
3. Tract D is a shared access and utility tract that will extend off of Road B. Tract D will
feature a paved width of 20 feet (tract is 26.5 ft. in width). Six lots (proposed lots no. 32
through 7) will take access from this private access tract. The tract will be marked “No
Parking” on both sides. Tract D will be owned and maintained by the HOA.
4. Tract E is a shared access and utility tract that will extend off of Road A. Tract E will
feature a paved width of 20 feet (tract is 26.5 ft. in width). Four lots (proposed lots no.
Page 184 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 15 of 34
12 through 15) will take access from this private access tract. The tract will be marked
“No Parking” on both sides. Tract E will be owned and maintained by the HOA.
5. An emergency vehicle and private access drive will extend off of Road A and connect
to 132nd Ave. SE. The driveway will serve continue to serve as a private driveway for
the private property owner to the north of the Site and for emergency services. The
driveway will be 20 ft. of gravel that is maintained by the HOA. The driveway will be
striped “No Parking – Fire Lane”. A gate with a ‘knox box’ padlock will prohibit non-
emergency vehicular access from 132nd. As conditioned below, an ingress and egress
easement, or other instrument as approved by the City, over the driveway must be
granted to the City of Auburn, for the purpose of providing emergency services.
6. Pedestrian access will be provided through the plat from via sidewalks along the
access tracts and roads to 133rd Ave. SE.
With the construction of the aforementioned roadways and pedestrian infrastructure, in
accordance with the Chapter 12.64A ACC ‘Required Public Improvements’, the COADS,
and the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and the requested deviations, the City’s
Transportation Division finds that there will be no decrease in the road network level of
service (LOS) standard. Additionally, as provided in ’Finding of Fact’ No. 22, each new
residence will be required to pay the Traffic Impact Fee in place at time of building permit
issuance.
Public Water: The Site is located in the City’s water service area. Adequate water service
will be provided for the Project. Water will be extended through the plat from an existing
water main in SE 306th St. through Tract E, a recreation tract, of the Kendall Ridge
subdivision located south and west of the Site. The water main will stub at the junction
between Road A and the emergency vehicle access and private driveway.
Public Sanitary Sewer: The Site is located in the City’s sewer service area. Adequate
sanitary sewer service will be provided for the Project and will be extended through the plat
from an existing water main in SE 306th St. through Tract E, a recreation tract, of the Kendall
Ridge subdivision located south and west of the Site.
Parks, Playgrounds: No parks or playgrounds are proposed for the Project and none are
required under city code authority. Per ‘Finding of Fact’ No. 19, Park Impact Fees will be
paid at the time of building permit issuance (currently $3,500.00 per unit). The closest park
is Village Square (located west of the intersection of 124th Ave. SE and SE 310th St.).
Village Square is approx. 1.10 acres in size and is 1.2 miles from the Project. Per the City of
Auburn Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan it is considered a small pocket
park that is nestled in the middle of an apartment complex. It features a loop trail and a
small grassy area in the middle. “Auburndale 2” (located north of the intersection of 118th
Ave. SE and SE 304th St.). Auburndale 2 is approximately 9.34 acres in size, features a
walking trail, and is 2 miles away from the Site (reference image below). While not yet
developed as a park, the city-owned Jacobsen Tree Farm, is 29.04 acres in size and is
approximately 0.9 miles (via 132nd Ave. SE) from the Site. The tree farm site was transferred
from King County to the City in 2003, and per the PROS Plan, it will be converted and
developed into a multi-use sports facility. The park is still in planning stages as the Parks
Dept. must secure funds for its development.
Page 185 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 16 of 34
Schools: The Site is located within the Auburn School District (ASD) boundary. Per the
Applicant, students within the Project will attend: 1) Arthur Jacobson Elementary School, 2)
Rainier Middle School, and 3) Auburn Mountainview High School. Students will be bussed
from a bus stop located near the intersection of 133rd Ave. SE and SE 306th St. to their
respective schools. Students will travel through the Site, to 133rd Ave. SE, via Road A,
where they will walk to SE 306th St. A safe walking route to the bus stop will be provided via
the installation of sidewalk along the frontage of the Project as part of required half-street
improvements, and existing sidewalk that was constructed with the plat directly to the west
of the Site (Kendall Ridge plat, reference image below). This information was obtained from
the “E-Link School/Transportation Information Portal” for the ASD (reference Exhibit 12).
Page 186 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 17 of 34
Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein.
B. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of the comprehensive
plan;
Staff Analysis: The Project is consistent with the general purposes of the Comprehensive
Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Map establishes the future land use designations for the
City of Auburn. The designation of ‘Single Family Residential’ establishes areas intended for
single family dwellings. The Comprehensive Plan Map depicts the Site as ‘Single Family
Residential’. With an approved request to deviate from the minimum required density, the
Project will subdivide 4.5 acres into 17 lots for single family dwellings. Therefore this Project
meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan by developing single family dwellings.
Additionally, adequate City services and facilities can be provided to serve the plat. City of
Auburn public utilities, such as sewer and water will be extended to serve the proposed
Project. The Project will also provide adequate facilities for stormwater; all stormwater will be
directed to either the private stormwater detention pond (Tracts B) and/or the stormwater
detention vault (Tract C). The stormwater pond will be required to meet applicable code and
engineering design standards, as conditioned below. Two new public roads, Road A and
Road B, S will be extended to serve the proposed Project. Sidewalks will be constructed on
one side of Road A and on both sides of Road B. The Project will connect pedestrians to
Road A via Road B, Tract D, and Tract E. Sidewalk will be required on one side of Tract D
and E to provide pedestrian access. Public services such as the Auburn Police Department,
Valley Regional Fire Authority, and the Auburn School District will also serve the proposed
Project. The Project will use an existing bus stop, located south of the proposed Project,
near the intersection of 133rd Ave. SE and SE 306th St. Finally, impact fees including traffic,
fire, parks, and school impact fees will mitigate respective impacts generated by the Project.
The Project is also consistent with or implements the specific following goals, objectives,
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan:
Page 187 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 18 of 34
Land Use
Policies:
“CORE Land Use 8. Identify, protect, preserve, and restore Auburn’s environment and
natural resources.”
“LU-5 New residential development should contribute to the creation, enhancement and
improvement of the transportation system, health and human services, emergency
services, school system, and park system. This may be accomplished through the
development of level of service standards, mitigation fees, impact fees, or construction
contributions.”
Capital Facilities
“Objective 1.1. To ensure that new development does not out-pace the City's ability to
provide and maintain adequate public facilities and services, by allowing new development
to occur only when and where adequate facilities exist or will be provided, and by
encouraging development types and locations which can support the public services they
require.”
Policies:
“CF-1 Lands designated for urban growth by this Plan shall have an urban level of public
facilities (sewer, water, storm drainage, and parks) prior to or concurrent with
development.”
“CF-2 Encourage development where new public facilities can be provided in an efficient
manner.”
“CF-4 If adequate facilities are currently unavailable and public funds are not committed to
provide such facilities, developers must provide such facilities at their own expense in
order to develop.”
“CF-7 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.”
“Objective 1.2. To ensure that new developments are supported by an adequate level of
public services through an effective system of public facilities.”
Policies:
“CF-10 Public facilities shall be provided in accord with the guidance of the Capital
Facilities Plan or, as may be appropriate a system plan for each type of facility designed to
serve at an adequate level of service the locations and intensities of uses specified in this
comprehensive plan.”
Page 188 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 19 of 34
“CF-12 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.”
“Objective 1.3. To ensure safe and adequate water service, for both domestic and fire
protection purposes, to meet the needs of the existing community and provide for its
planned growth.”
“CF-16 The City shall continue its policy of requiring that water system extensions needed
to serve new development shall be built prior to or simultaneously with such development,
according to the size and configuration identified by the Comprehensive Water Plan as
necessary to serve future planned development. The location and design of these facilities
shall give full consideration to the ease of operation and maintenance of these facilities by
the City. The City shall continue to participate to the extent permitted by law, through direct
participation, LIDs, and payback agreements, to assist in the financing of such oversized
improvements. Wherever any form of City finance is involved in a waterline extension,
lines that promote a compact development pattern will be favored over lines traversing
large undeveloped areas with uncertain future development plans.”
“Objective 1.4. To ensure the efficient transmission of sanitary sewage to the appropriate
treatment and disposal facilities in order to meet the needs of the existing community and
provide for its planned growth.”
“CF-23 The City shall continue its policy of requiring that sewer system extensions needed
to serve new development shall be built prior to or simultaneously with such development,
according to the size and configuration identified by the Comprehensive Sewer Plan and
Comprehensive Plan as necessary to serve future planned development. The location and
design of these facilities shall give full consideration to the ease of operation and
maintenance of these facilities by the City. The City shall continue to use, to the extent
permitted by law, direct participation, LIDs and payback agreements to assist in the
financing of such oversized improvements. Wherever any form of City finance is involved
in a sewer line extension, lines that promote a compact development pattern will be
favored over lines traversing large undeveloped areas where future development plans are
uncertain.”
“Objective 1.6. To ensure that collection, conveyance, storage and discharge of storm
drainage is provided in a sufficient and environmentally responsible manner, in order to
meet the needs of the existing community and provide for its planned growth.”
Policies:
“CF-37 The City shall require developers to construct storm drainage improvements
directly serving the development, including any necessary off-site improvements.”
Transportation Plan
“Connect-01: 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
Page 189 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 20 of 34
continue to plan a series of collectors and arterials designed to national standards to
provide efficient service to the community.”
“Funding-01: Require developments or redevelopments to construct transportation
infrastructure systems needed to serve new developments.”
“Funding-03: Improvements that serve new developments will be constructed as a part of
the development process. All costs will be borne by the developer when the development
is served by the proposed transportation improvements. In some instances, the City may
choose to participate in this construction if improvements serve more than adjacent
developments.”
“Parking-02: New developments should provide adequate off-street parking to meet their
needs.”
“ROW-01: The acquisition and preservation of right-of-way is a key component of
maintaining a viable transportation system. Methods used to acquire and preserve right-of-
way include:
♣ Requiring dedication of right-of-way as a condition of development;
♣ Purchasing right-of-way at fair market value; and
♣ Acquiring development rights and easements from property owners.”
“Ped-03: Require developers to incorporate pedestrian facilities into new development
and redevelopment in conformance with the Auburn City Code.”
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan
“PR-8 Park impact fees should be established that help fund the future development of
new parks, park facilities, trails, and acquisition of open space that meet the needs of an
increasing population.”
C. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of any other applicable
policies or plans which have been adopted by the city council;
Staff Analysis: The preceding analysis for Criterion B demonstrates the Project’s
consistency with the applicable policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plans adopted
by the City. The project is generally consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan
including the City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan, Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and
the PROS Plan.
D. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of this title, as
enumerated in ACC 17.02.030;
Staff Analysis: The proposed subdivision meets the general purposes of Title 17 ‘Land
Adjustments and Subdivisions’. The Summit at Kendall Ridge Preliminary Plat is a 17-lot
subdivision that, with an approved request to deviate from the minimum required density, is
consistent with the R-5 zoning district. Adequate provisions for water, sewer, storm
drainage, roads, and safe walking conditions will be provided with this Project. The plat has
been processed and reviewed for conformity with the regulations for the Auburn City Code,
city plans and policies, and COADS.
Page 190 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 21 of 34
Below is a comparison of the Project’s consistency with ACC 17.02.030 and the specific
purpose statements of the subdivision code (in italics) followed by a Staff analysis for each
item.
“The purpose of this title is to regulate the division of land lying within the corporate limits
of the city, and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare and prevent or
abate public nuisances in accordance with standards established by the state and the
city, and to:
A. Prevent the overcrowding of land;
Staff Analysis: The Project does meet the minimum and base density of the R-5 zoning
district. As provided under ‘Finding of Fact’ No. 6, the R-5 zoning district has a density
range of between 4 and 5 dwelling units per acre. The site is approximately 4.5 acres,
which in accordance with the density calculation would require between 18 and 22.5
(rounded to 23 per ACC 18.02.065(A)(1)(a)) lots. As proposed, the Project will contain
17 lots, which is below the base density for the R-5 zoning district. However, the
applicant has requested and has been granted a deviation from minimum density.
Therefore, the considering the Project is below base density it will not create an
overcrowding of the land.
B. Promote safe and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways;
Staff Analysis: A safe and convenient travel will be provided. The Project is will
construct two new public roads, Road A and B. Road A will feature sidewalk on one side
of the road and Road B will feature sidewalk on both sides of the road, therefore
providing pedestrian access to and through the Project.
C. Promote the effective use of land;
Staff Analysis: Given the number of encumbrances that preclude development, as
provided in ‘Finding of Fact’ No. 6, the Project is effectively developing the Site by
maximizing the number of residential units that are allowed.
D. Provide for adequate light and air;
Staff Analysis: The Project will provide adequate light and air through the applicable
setback and lot coverage development standards.
E. Facilitate adequate provision for water, sewerage, storm drainage, parks and
recreational areas, sites for schools and school grounds, and other public requirements;
Staff Analysis: The Finding of Facts, and preceding analysis for Criteria A and B
demonstrates the Project is providing adequate provisions for water supplies, sanitary
wastes, drainage, roads, and other public requirements such as public health, safety,
parks, and schools.
F. Identify, preserve, and utilize native soils and/or vegetation for the purposes of
reducing storm water discharges, promoting groundwater infiltration, and implementing
the use of storm water low impact development techniques;
Page 191 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 22 of 34
Staff Analysis: The western portion of the site is relatively flat. The majority of the sloping
occurs on the eastern portion of the Site. Slopes in the eastern portion of the Site have
inclinations between 15 to 40% percent with underlying soils consisting of glacial till.
Those portions are therefore considered Class II/Moderate Landslide Hazard Area per
Chapter 16.10 ACC and will be placed in a separate tract (Tract F). To accommodate
construction of stormwater detention vault (Tract C) and proposed lots 14 through 17 a
portion of the geologic hazard area will be disturbed. However, as conditioned below
slope re-vegetation plan for the area must be submitted during the FAC process and
vegetation must be installed prior to approval of the final plat. The western portion of the
site contains a Category III wetland. The wetland and its associated buffer will also be
placed into a tract (Tract A). As conditioned below, prior to commencement of
construction or clearing activities, the boundary for the buffer of Tract A shall be clearly
marked with orange construction fencing or similar, and will remain in place until all
clearing and construction is completed. In preparation of the remaining lots, stormwater
detention pond (Tract B), shared access and utility tracts (Tract D and E), roads and
utilities, the Site will be cleared of vegetation and graded. Further, to reduce stormwater
discharges, areas of the Site will be revegetated. As proposed in the Preliminary Civil
Plans (Exhibit 7), landscape strips along Road B will contain sod lawn and street trees.
The area inside the stormwater facilities (Tract B and C) will be hydroseeded. Finally, as
required by the R-5 zoning district, the subsequent development of each lot will be held
to a maximum of 40% lot coverage (roofed area) and 65% impervious surface coverage.
G. Provide for proper ingress and egress;
Staff Analysis: As demonstrated in the analysis for Criterion A, the Project will provide
proper ingress and egress for each individual future home, and a pedestrian connection.
H. Provide for the expeditious review and approval of proposed land divisions which
comply with this title, the Auburn zoning ordinance, other city plans, policies and land
use controls, and Chapter 58.17 RCW;
Staff Analysis: Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure a timely and
comprehensive review of the Project.
I. Adequately provide for the housing and commercial needs of the citizens of the state
and city;
Staff Analysis: The Project will eventually provide for 17 new single-family residences to
serve future residents.
J. Require uniform monumenting of land divisions and conveyance by accurate legal
description;
Staff Analysis: Upon final plat map review, the Project will be required to meet all
applicable survey requirements.
K. Implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan.”
Staff Analysis: As analyzed in Criterion B, the Project successfully implements the
Comprehensive Plan.
Page 192 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 23 of 34
Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein.
E. 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, or
as modified and approved as part of a previously approved PUD;
Staff Analysis: As analyzed in the ‘Preliminary Plat Findings’, above, the Project is able to
meet applicable zoning and engineering design standards, with the exception of the
deviation from minimum density, critical areas variance, and engineering deviations, all
which are discussed under ‘Finding of Fact’ No. 6, ‘Critical Areas Variance Conclusion’, and
the ‘Engineering Deviation Conclusions’ respectively.
The placement of homes will be required to meet the zoning development standards for the
R-5 zoning district to which the Project is vested (reference ’Finding of Fact’ No. 13).
Staff therefore finds that the Project is able to meet this criterion, as conditioned
herein.
F. 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;
Staff Analysis: Per Wetland Buffer Enhancement Report (Exhibit 9), one 15,507 sq. ft.
Category III wetland exits onsite. The wetland and its associated buffer will be placed into a
separate tract (Tract A) on the final plat map and encumbered by a conservation easement.
The construction of Road A will result in the elimination of approximately 467 sq. ft. of the
on-site buffer and 476 sq. ft. of the off-site buffer associated with the wetland. However, the
applicant made application for a Critical Areas Variance, which is analyzed below.
Additionally, the Applicant has submitted a draft Critical Area Mitigation Plan and proposed
to offset the necessary reductions to the wetland buffer, by enlarging the northern and
southern portion of the buffer within Tract A. The Critical Area Mitigation Plan will be
reviewed with the future submittal of the FAC (civil) plans for the Project.
The easternmost portion of the site has been identified as a Class II/Moderate Landslide
Hazard Area. The area containing the geologic hazard area (approximately 0.84 acres) will
be placed into a separate tract (Tract F). A 15 ft. buffer will extend from the top of slope onto
proposed lots no. 14, 15, 16, and 17. Tract F and the 15 ft. buffer will be placed in a
conservation easement. Isolated areas of the Class II Landslide Hazard are proposed to be
altered to accommodate the stormwater detention vault and associated flow control
structures within Tract C and Tract D. However, the Applicant has provided the City with
adequate information to show that risks associated with the alterations will be in
conformance with the City’s Critical Areas code (Chapter 16.10 ACC) and COADS. The
altered areas are proposed to be revegetated.
The Site is also located within Groundwater Protection Zone 4, which is the least stringent
classification. With the utilization of Best Management Practices, it is anticipated that
potential impacts to groundwater can be mitigated.
Page 193 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 24 of 34
A DNS was issued on October 17, 2019 or this Project. Compliance with the recommended
conditions of approval, city code, and COADS will ensure that the Project will not have an
adverse impact on the environment.
During FAC (civil plan) review process, the Project will be reviewed in accordance with
applicable local, state, and federal standards to ensure no unacceptable adverse impacts to
the environment occur.
Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein.
G. Adequate provisions are made so the preliminary plat will prevent or abate public nuisances;
Staff Analysis: Adequate provisions are made, and will be made through the subsequent
civil plan review process, so the proposed Project will prevent or abate public nuisances. As
the Site is mainly undeveloped, there are no active code violation cases for the site and no
known public nuisances.
Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein.
H. Lot configuration, street and utility layouts, and building envelopes shall be designed in a
manner that identifies, preserves, and utilizes native soils and/or vegetation that are
integrated into a low impact development facility, consistent with the city’s adopted storm
water management manual.
Staff Analysis: As analyzed in Criteria A, B, and D above, the Project has been designed
such that it will be consistent with the City’s Engineering Design Standards and the Ecology
SWMMWW and Auburn Supplements.
Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein.
Critical Area Variance Conclusions
Staff recommends approval of the Critical Areas Variance, with no conditions. Conditions
for the Critical Areas Variance is sufficiently addressed in the Preliminary Plat
Conditions.
The Applicant has requested a Variance from the following Code section regarding wetland
buffer widths:
ACC 16.10.090(E)(1):
Buffer widths shall be established for specific critical areas according to the following
standards and criteria:
1. Wetland Buffers shall be established as follows:
Wetland Category Minimum Buffer Width Maximum Buffer Width
(see subsection (E)(1)(g) of
this section)
Category I 100 feet 200 feet
Page 194 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 25 of 34
The Variance request is for reduction of an on-site and off-site minimum buffer width of a
Category III wetland within the Project. As shown on Sheet C4.1 of the Preliminary Civil Plans
(Exhibit 7), approximately 467 sq. ft. of the on-site buffer and 476 sq. ft. of the off-site buffer will
be eliminated to accommodate the construction of public Road A.
Per ACC 16.10.090(D), a variance from buffer width requirements may be granted by the city
subject to the variance criteria set forth in ACC 16.10.160. Variance requests which exceed 10
percent are consider a Type III Decision. Per ACC 14.03.030, Type III Decisions are quasi-
judicial final decisions made by the Hearing Examiner. Since the 23 ft. buffer reduction exceeds
10 percent of the requirement, a minimum 25 ft. buffer, the requested Variance must be
considered by the hearing examiner. The Applicant has prepared a written statement the
Variance Criteria found in ACC 16.10.160, see Exhibit 14.
ACC 16.10.160(A), ‘Variances’, specifies that the Hearing Examiner may approve or modify and
approve an application for a variance if the application satisfies all of the approval criteria
specified in ACC 16.10.160(A) through (F). Following is a staff analysis of the variance
application’s compliance with each criterion; the criteria are as follows (in italics) followed by
Staff’s analysis:
1. There are unique physical conditions peculiar and inherent to the affected property which
make it difficult or infeasible to strictly comply with the provisions of this section.
Staff Analysis: The Site features unique physical characteristics and conditions such that
access to the site is only feasibly possible through the development of the existing road and
utility easement. The Site features the following unique physical characteristics:
• The site has one existing road and utility easement located along the northern boundary
of the site.
• An approximately 0.63-acre, Category III wetland and its associated buffer exists on the
western portion of the Site. The existing road and utility easement encumber the wetland
area.
• An approximately 0.84-acre geologic hazard areas, classified as a Class II/Moderate
Landslide Hazard Area, exists on the eastern portion of the Site.
• Two sub-drainage basins exist on site. The majority of the existing stormwater runoff
sheet flows to the east edge of the Site toward Highway (Hwy) 18. The remainder of the
stormwater runoff sheet flows toward the west side of the Site. The sub-drainage basins
must be maintained, so two, stormwater treatment and flow control facilities must be
constructed within the plat.
• The areas off-site to the west and south are fully developed with residences.
• The property owner north of the site will not grant access through their property.
Considering that these physical characteristics and conditions inhibit other possible access
points into the Site, the Development potential of the Site would be severely limited if a
reduction in the wetland buffer was not approved.
Category II 50 feet 100 feet
Category III 25 feet (emphasis added) 50 feet
Category IV 25 feet 30 feet
Page 195 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 26 of 34
Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion.
2. The variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the building footprint and access.
Staff Analysis: The applicant is only requesting the minimum variance necessary to
accommodate the construction of a new “Local Residential” classified road (Road A). Road
A will provide access from 133rd Ave. SE to the Site. The construction of Road A will require
the conversion of Tract K of Kendall Ridge into ROW. The conversion of Tract K, a 30 ft.
tract, into ROW will result in the elimination of 476 sq. ft. off-site buffer. On-site, Road A will
be approximately 31.26 ft. to 35.5 ft. in width and will result in the elimination of approx. 467
sq. ft. of buffer. It should be mentioned that, on-site, the narrowest parts of Road A will be
constructed where the off-site and on-site buffers will be eliminated. Typically, a new full
(width) “Local Residential” classified road requires 50 feet of right-of-way (ROW), and half-
street improvements” require 35 feet of ROW. However, given the physical constraints of the
Site, the Applicant has requested a deviation from the City’s engineering design standards
to reduce the width of the half-street improvements (reference City File No. DEV18-0017
under ‘Engineering Deviation Conclusions’). Therefore, it can be demonstrated that the
Applicant is requesting the minimum variance to accommodate access to the Site.
The location of the building footprints within the plat features no relationship to the off-site
and on-site buffer to be eliminated. Therefore the Variance is not required to accommodate
building footprints.
Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion.
3. The proposed variance would preserve the functions and values of the critical area, and/or
the proposal does not create or increase a risk to the public health, safety and general
welfare, or to public or private property;.
Staff Analysis: The proposed variance will preserve the functions and values of the
wetland. As shown in the 2019 aerial image the off-site and on-site buffer is impacted by an
existing un-vegetated dirt road. As stated in the Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan (Exhibit
9) the existing dirt road does afford the ability to control stormwater runoff and therefore
does not prevent pollution, debris, or sediment from entering the wetland or its associated
buffer. Currently a 12" pipe crosses the existing dirt road and discharged stormwater to the
wetland. The new road, Road A, will be paved and constructed with stormwater controls
such that stormwater runoff from the road will be conveyed to the stormwater facility within
the eastern sub-basin, the stormwater vault. Wetland hydrology will be maintained by flow
(discharge) from the west stormwater detention pond (Tract C), from 10 of the 17 future
building roofs, and from runoff of from the rear yards of proposed Lots 1 through 4. Further,
the applicant will be adding 1,043 sq. ft. of new wetland buffer along the southerly portion of
the wetland and 623 sq. ft. of new wetland buffer along the northeasterly portion of the
wetland in compensation. The added buffer will further assist in preserving the functions and
values of the critical area.
Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion.
4. The proposed variance would not adversely affect surrounding properties adjoining.
Page 196 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 27 of 34
Staff Analysis: The wetland and its associated buffer will be placed into a separate tract
(Tract A), encumbered by a native growth protection easement. The western boundary of
Tract A will abut the wetland tract of Kendall Ridge (Tract B, reference Exhibit 17), no buffer
is proposed for the western boundary of Tract A. The eastern boundary of Tract A will abut
proposed Lots 1 through 4 and west detention pond. A 25 ft. buffer will be observed along
the eastern boundary of Tract A. The southern boundary of Tract A abuts Tract C of Kendall
Ridge. Tract C of Kendall Ridge was platted as a buffer for the off-site wetland located east
of the Kendall Ridge (the wetland that is now to be placed within Tract A of Summit at
Kendall Ridge). A buffer greater than 25 ft. will be observed along the southern boundary of
Tract A. The northern portion of Tract A will abut the new proposed road, Road A. The
construction of the new local residential road will result in the reduction of a portion of the
wetland buffer. Since the wetland buffer spans the subject project as well as the Kendall
Ridge subdivision, buffer reduction will occur both on-site, and off-site with the conversion of
Tract K of Kendall Ridge into ROW. Off-site, it appears that the new road will abut the
wetland within Tract B of Kendall Ridge, however Tract K was platted with the intention of
being converted into public ROW and the new road will afford some stormwater control. On-
site, within Tract A, a minimum of at least approx. 6 ft. of buffer will remain between the
Road A and the wetland. Further, as noted in Criterion 3 the reduction in buffer width will not
result in any stormwater runoff impacts to surrounding property owners.
Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion.
5. Adverse impacts to critical areas resulting from the proposal are minimized.
Staff Analysis: As analyzed in Criteria 1 through 4, above, the Applicant has requested the
minimum variance necessary to provide access to the Site. To offset the necessary
reductions to the wetland buffer, the Applicant has proposed to enlarge the northern and
southern portion of the buffer within Tract A. Additionally, the buffer area will be enhanced
with native trees and shrubs and will be monitored for a minimum of three years to assure
success of the buffer enhancement (reference Wetland Buffer Mitigation Enhancement
Report, Exhibit 9).
Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion.
6. The special circumstances or conditions affecting the property are not a result of the actions
of the applicant or previous owner.
Staff Analysis: The circumstances or conditions affecting the property are not a result of the
actions of the applicant or previous owner.
Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion.
Engineering Deviation Conclusions
Per Section 1.04 of the City of Auburn Engineering Design Standards (COADS) the City
Engineer may grant a deviation from the engineering design standards, construction standards,
and the Ecology SWMMWW and Auburn Supplements if the applicant demonstrates that the
proposed deviation will meet or exceed the corresponding City standard for the criteria listed in
Section 1.04.1. For deviation applications that are associated with a preliminary plat application
submitted in compliance with Chapter 17.10 ‘Preliminary Subdivisions’ ACC, the City Engineer
Page 197 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 28 of 34
shall make a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner on any modifications requested from the
COADS.
Per Chapter 17.18 ‘Modifications of Standards and Specifications’ ACC, the Hearing Examiner
may approve a modification of any standard or specification established or referenced by
Chapter 17.14 ‘Improvement Requirements – Subdivisions’, or referenced in the city’s design
standards or construction standards.
The City Engineer has reviewed each Deviation and has the following recommendations to the
Hearing Examiner:
1. City File No. DEV18-0017 (Exhibit 15):
• Cul-de-sacs (COADS Section 10.02.10.3): Approval to increase in the maximum
number of dwelling units allowed at the end of streets with a dead end cul-de-sac.
• Cul-de-sacs (COADS Section 10.02.10.3): Approval to increase in the maximum
length of a dead end street.
• Local Residential Cross Section (COADS Ch. 10, Table 10-1): Approval to reduce in
the minimum right of way width and roadway section.
• Local Residential Cross Sections (COADS Ch. 10, Table 10-1): Approval to reduce
the minimum horizontal curve radius on local residential streets.
In the case of the request to deviate from Section 10.02.10.3 of the COADS to increase
the maximum length of a dead end street and to increase the maximum number of
dwelling units at the end of a cul-de-sac, the City Engineer has determined that the
proposal meets or exceeds the corresponding City standards. The request to deviate
from Section 10.02.10.3 ‘Cul-de-sacs’ of the COADS is approvable and is
recommended for approval to the Hearing Examiner.
In the case of the request to deviate from Table 10-1 of the COADS to reduce the
minimum right of way width and road section, and reduce the minimum horizontal curve
radius on local residential streets, the City Engineer has determined that the proposal
meets or exceeds the corresponding City standards. The request to deviate from
Table 10-1 'Summary Matrix of Minimum Street Design Requirements' of the
COADS is approvable and is recommended for approval to the Hearing Examiner.
2. City File No. DEV19-0031 (Exhibit 15):
• Clear Zone (COADS 10.17): Approval of public right of way improvements, including
a public local residential street serving the proposed plat development, abutting an
existing property line fence that is located within the clear zone for the proposed
public local residential street.
• Access Tract Improvements (COADS 10.01.6): Approval of a private access tract for
the proposed preliminary plat with required tract improvements terminating six feet
from the end of the proposed access tract.
In the case of the request to deviate from Section 10.17 of the COADS to allow an
existing fence to remain in the clear zone of a proposed public local residential street,
the City Engineer has determined that the proposal meets or exceeds the corresponding
City standards. The request to deviate from Section 10.17 ‘Clear Zone’ is
approvable and is recommended for approval to the Hearing Examiner.
Page 198 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 29 of 34
In the case of the request to deviate from Section 10.01.6 of the COADS to terminate the
required tract improvements 6 feet from the end of the proposed tract, the City Engineer
has determined that the proposal meets or exceeds the corresponding City standards
except as follows:
The proposal does not meet criteria 1.04.1.A, functional intent of the design
element. City standard is consistent with the construction of local residential
streets, which complete improvements within the full length and width of right of
way. The proposal to terminate improvements before the end of the access tract
leaves a section of the tract that serves no functional intent as an access tract.
Based on the above, the request to deviate from Section 10.01.6 ‘Access Tract
Improvements’ of the COADS is not approvable by the City and is not
recommended for approval to the Hearing Examiner. The applicant will be required
to revise the access tract to end at the end of the proposed improvements, with the
remaining area incorporated into the adjacent lots.
3. City File No. DEV19-0034 (Exhibit 15):
• ‘Detention Vaults’ (COA SWMM Vol. III, Ch. 3.2.3): Approval of the construction of a
detention vault located on a tract proposed for dedication to the City.
In the case of the request to deviate from Volume III, Ch. 3.2.3 of the COA SWMM to
construct a stormwater detention vault located on a tract proposed for dedication to the
City, the City Engineer has determined that the proposal meets or exceeds the
corresponding City standards except as follows:
The proposal does not meet criteria 1.04.1.C and D, operational and
maintenance concerns of the design element. The final design of the detention
vault is incomplete and the feasibility of maintenance and operation of the facility
by the City must be shown.
Based on the above, the request to deviate from Volume III, Chapter 3.2.3
‘Detention Vaults’ of the COA SWMM is conditionally approvable and is
recommended for conditional approval to the Hearing Examiner with the following
condition:
1) Design of the stormwater detention vault shall conform to the design criteria
given in draft form to the applicant and adopted in the City of Auburn
Supplemental Manual to the Department of Ecology Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW), Version 3
adopted January 6, 2020, in addition to the design criteria required by the
Department of Ecology SWMMWW. Final approval of the stormwater
detention vault design will occur during the FAC review and approval
process.
4. City File No. DEV19-0057 (Exhibit 15):
• Local Streets – Local Residential (COADS 10.01.3.1): Approval to increase the slope
adjacent to the right of way above the required 2:1 maximum slope by installing a
retaining wall to support the sidewalk.
Page 199 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 30 of 34
• Cement Concrete Sidewalk Without Landscape Strip (COA Standard Detail T-15):
Approval to build a non-standard sidewalk cross-section to accommodate a retaining
wall located in the right-of-way.
In the case of the request to deviate from Section 10.01.3.1 of the COADS and COA
Standard Detail T-15 to increase the slope adjacent to the right of way above the
required 2:1 maximum slope and to construct a non-standard sidewalk cross-section to
accommodate a retaining wall, the City Engineer has determined that the proposal
meets or exceeds the corresponding City standards except as follows:
The proposal does not meet criteria 1.04.1.B and D, safety and maintenance
concerns of the design element. The wall up to 30 inches in height adjacent to
the right of way presents a falling hazard. The wall is located adjacent to private
property without a maintenance easement, preventing the City from establishing
wall maintenance access.
Based on the above, the request to deviate from Section 10.01.3.1 ‘Local Streets –
Local Residential’ of the COADS and COA Standard Detail T-15 ‘Cement Concrete
Sidewalk Without Landscape Strip’ is conditionally approvable by the City and is
recommended for conditional approval to the Hearing Examiner with the following
condition:
1) The length of the wall shall include fencing that will be located at the edge of
the sidewalk and right-of-way. Fencing design specifics will be finalized in the
FAC engineering review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Summit at Kendall Ridge Preliminary Plat, the Critical Areas
Variance request (City File No. VAR19-0006), and the Engineering Deviation requests,(City File
Nos. DEV18-0017, DEV19-0031, DEV19-0034, and DEV19-0057). subject to the information
contained in this Staff Report, the attached exhibits, and the 32 recommended conditions of
approval below.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The application for a Type III Critical Areas Variance allowing for the reduction of an on-site
and off-site minimum buffer width of a Category III wetland within the Project is approvable.
Staff recommends approval of the Type III Critical Areas Variance.
2. A final wetland buffer enhancement (mitigation) plan for the on-site wetlands shall be
prepared and submitted consistent with Chapter 16.10 ACC. The plan must be submitted
during the City of Auburn Facilities Extension Agreement (FAC) review process. The
Wetland Mitigation Plan must be approved prior to approval of the FAC. The mitigation
construction must be installed, inspected and accepted prior to approval of the final plat.
3. Prior to commencement of construction or clearing activities on the site under the FAC, the
boundary for the buffer of Tract A shall be clearly marked with orange construction fencing
Page 200 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 31 of 34
or similar, and shown on engineering plans. The fencing shall remain in place until all
clearing and construction is completed.
4. Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC, the plans shall show permanent split
rail fencing or similar fence construction and critical area signs along the outer boundary of
the wetland buffer of Tract A. The signs shall be permanent and made of metal face and
attached to the fence, a metal post, firmed anchored, or other materials of equal durability
approved by the director. The signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every 50
feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by the Summit at Kendall Ridge
Homeowner’s Association (HOA) in perpetuity.
5. Long-term protection of the Category III wetland and its associated buffer (Tract A) must be
protected by execution of an easement dedicated to the city, a conservation organization,
land trust, or similarly preserved through a permanent protective mechanism acceptable to
the city. The easement shall grant the City access to on-site mitigation areas for the
purposes of monitoring, maintaining, preserving, and enhancing the on-site wetlands and
associated buffer areas, but not the obligation to. The easement shall also include a
statement to leave undisturbed all trees and other vegetation within Tract A. The vegetation
may not be cut, pruned, covered by fill, removed, or damaged without approval in writing
from the City, unless otherwise approved by law.
6. A slope re-vegetation plan for the Site’s 15-foot critical geologic hazard buffer must be
submitted during the FAC process. The re-vegetation plan must be approved prior to
approval of the FAC. The mitigation construction must be installed prior to approval of the
final plat.
7. Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC, the plans shall show permanent split
rail fencing or similar fence construction and critical area signs along the perimeter of the
geologic hazard area, Tract F. The signs shall be permanent and made of metal face and
attached to the fence, a metal post, firmed anchored, or other materials of equal durability
approved by the director. The signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every 50
feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by the HOA in perpetuity.
8. The critical geologic hazard area (Tract F) and its associated 15-foot buffer must be
protected by execution of an easement dedicated to the city, a conservation organization,
land trust, or similarly preserved through a permanent protective mechanism acceptable to
the city. The easement shall grant the City access to on-site mitigation areas for the
purposes of monitoring, maintaining, preserving, and enhancing the geologic hazard area,
but not the obligation to. The easement shall also include a statement to leave undisturbed
all trees and other vegetation within Tract F. The vegetation may not be cut, pruned,
covered by fill, removed, or damaged without approval in writing from the City, unless
otherwise approved by law.
9. Prior to final plat approval a note shall be placed on the Final Plat indicating that the Summit
at Kendall Ridge Homeowner’s Association and its heirs and successors shall maintain the
wetland tract (Tract A) and geologic hazard tract (Tract F). Additionally, the Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to be reviewed by the City shall also address this
maintenance responsibility.
10. The Site is in the City’s identified Groundwater Protection Zone 4. All approvals and permits
Page 201 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 32 of 34
related to the Project and issued by the City shall be consistent with best management
practices (BMPs) per ACC 16.10.120(E)(2).
11. Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC, the existing on-site septic system
shall be abandoned in accordance with the King County Health Department requirements
and documentation of the approved abandonment from the Health Department shall be
provided to the City.
12. Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC, the water meter at the water main in
132nd Ave. SE. shall be abandoned in accordance with City of Auburn requirements.
13. The emergency vehicle access (EVA) and private drive shall be maintained by the Summit
at Kendall Ridge HOA and shall be recorded on the face of the Plat.
14. Due to fire access limitations, all homes in the plat must include fire sprinkler systems.
15. An ingress and egress easement, or other instrument as approved by the City, over the
emergency vehicle access (EVA) and private drive must be granted to the City of Auburn,
for the purpose of providing emergency services.
16. A note shall be placed on the final plat indicating that the owners of lots 5 through 10 shall
be solely responsible for the maintenance of the retaining wall located on the east edge of
each parcel.
17. Easement language for conveyance of Tract C to the City must allow access of the property
owners such that the retaining wall can be maintained. The easement language must also
contain language requiring the HOA or property owners to coordinate with City M&O to
access.
18. An ingress and egress easement, or other instrument as approved by the City, over Tract E
must be granted to the City of Auburn, for the purpose of storm vault maintenance.
19. The applicant proposes to place traffic calming measures on Road A, east of where Road A
turns into 133rd Ave. SE, to reduce vehicle speeds to meet sight distance standards.
Therefore, prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC, the applicant will need to
demonstrate that the proposed traffic calming measures will adequately reduce vehicle
speeds to meet sight distance standards, as determined by the City Engineer.
20. The application (City File No. DEV18-0017) for a deviation from the COADS Section
10.02.10.3 ‘Cul-de-sacs’ and Table 10-1 'Summary Matrix of Minimum Street Design
Requirements' to increase the maximum length of a dead end, the maximum dwelling units
at the end of a cul-de-sac, and to reduce the minimum right of way width, minimum roadway
section, and minimum horizontal curve radius is approvable. The City Engineer recommends
to the Hearing Examiner approval of DEV18-0017.
21. The application (City File No. DEV19-0031) for a deviation from the COADS Section 10.17
‘Clear Zone’ to construct a public local residential street abutting an existing property line
fence that is located within the Clear Zone is approvable. The City Engineer recommends to
the Hearing Examiner approval of DEV19-0031.
Page 202 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 33 of 34
22. The application (City File No. DEV19-0034) for a deviation from the COA SWMM Vol. III, Ch.
3.2.3 ‘Detention Vaults’ to build a stormwater detention vault on a tract proposed for
dedication to the City is approvable. The City Engineer recommends to the Hearing
Examiner approval of DEV19-0034 with the following condition:
1) Design of the stormwater detention vault shall conform to the design criteria given in
draft form to the applicant and adopted in the City of Auburn Supplemental Manual to
the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington (SWMMWW), Version 3 adopted January 6, 2020, in addition to the
design criteria required by the SWMMWW. Final approval of the stormwater
detention vault design will occur during the FAC review and approval process.
23. The application (City File No. DEV19-0057) for a deviation from the COADS Section
10.01.3.1 ‘Local Streets – Local Residential’ and COA Standard Detail T-15 ‘Cement
Concrete Sidewalk Without Landscape Strip’ to increase the slope adjacent to the right of
way above the minimum required 2:1 maximum slope, and constructing a non-standard
sidewalk with a retaining wall located in the right of way is approvable. The City Engineer
recommends to the Hearing Examiner approval of DEV19-0057 with the following
condition(s):
1) The length of the wall shall include fencing that will be located at the edge of the
sidewalk and right-of-way. Fencing design specifics will be finalized in the FAC
engineering review.
24. A note shall be placed on the final plat indicating that the Summit at Kendall Ridge HOA and
its heirs and successors will provide maintenance of the stormwater detention pond (Tract
B). Maintenance responsibilities shall include all landscaping and structures located on the
pond tract.
25. A note shall be placed on the Final Plat indicating that the Summit at Kendall Ridge HOA
and its heirs and successors shall maintain those portions of the tracts containing the
shared access tracts and utility easements (Tracts D and E). Additionally, the Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to be reviewed by the City shall also address this
maintenance responsibility.
26. The project shall include a hold harmless agreement to be recorded as a covenant and
noted on the face of the plat per ACC 16.10.100(E)(2)(c)(iii) to address the development of
the stormwater detention vault and parcels adjacent to the critical slopes on the site. The
City shall prepare the hold harmless agreement for signing and recording during the final
plat.
27. Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC, the Applicant must provide
documentation of submittal of an application to the Washington State Department of
Ecology for a Construction Stormwater General Permit, as required for all projects over 1
acre in size.
28. Fencing shall be provided around the perimeter of the stormwater detention vault, the
location of which shall be reviewed and determined during the FAC review and consistent
with current City standards.
Page 203 of 380
Staff Member: Teague
Date: August 3, 2020
Page 34 of 34
29. Prior to City approval of the construction plans under the FAC, the plans shall show that the
appropriate portions of public streets shall be posted “No Parking” due to its road width or
presence of medians. Also, the cul-de-sac shall be posted “No Parking” around the entire
perimeter. Posting shall be in accordance with ACC and City of Auburn Engineering Design
Standards.
30. A note shall be placed on the final plat indicating that the owners of proposed Lots 14
through 17 shall be solely responsible for the maintenance of the french drain system
located on the east edge of each parcel.
31. A note on the title of proposed Lots no. 1 through 4, notifying future owners that the
backyard drains to the wetland within Tract A.
32. Prior to City approval of the construction plans under the FAC, the applicant shall provide
written approval from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
allowing the discharge of the storm detention vault to the ditch adjacent to Highway 18.
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
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1. Staff Report
Exhibit 2. Vicinity Map
Exhibit 3. Completed Preliminary Plat Application Forms, prepared by AHBL, Inc., received
May 7, 2018
Exhibit 4. Combined Notice of Application and DNS, completed SEPA Checklist, and Public
Notice Documents
Exhibit 5. Notice of Public Hearing and Public Notice Documents
Exhibit 6. Written Comments and Received and City Responses
Exhibit 7. Preliminary Civil Plans, AHBL, Inc., dated May 20, 2020
Exhibit 8. Wetland Delineation Report, Theresa Dusek Consulting, dated March 29, 2018
Exhibit 9. Wetland Buffer Enhancement Report, Theresa Dusek Consulting, revised
June 24, 2019
Exhibit 10. Geotechnical Response Letter and Geotechnical Report, South Sound
Geotechnical Consulting, dated August 27, 2019 and April 3, 2019
Exhibit 11. Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan, AHBL, revised October 2019
Exhibit 12. School Access Form and Safe Walking Route Plan , AHBL, dated October 15,
2018
Exhibit 13. Minimum Density Plat Deviation Request Letter, AHBL, Inc., dated April 25, 2019
Exhibit 14. Critical Areas Variance Request Letter, AHBL, Inc. dated September 25, 2019
Exhibit 15. Engineering Deviation Request(s), AHBL, Inc. dated April 15, 2019, September
10, 2019, September 12, 2019, and December 13, 2019 and COA
Recommendation Approval Letter(s)
Exhibit 16. Administrative Variance Decision Letter and Staff Report
Exhibit 17. Kendall Ridge Plat Map (adjacent plat)
Prepared by Alexandria Teague, AICP, Planner II
Page 204 of 380
EXHIBIT 2
Page 205 of 380
20
EXHIBIT 3
Page 206 of 380
Form Updated 1/30/2017 4
CITY OF AUBURN PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (PLAT)
Planning & Development Department APPLICATION
Auburn City Hall Annex, 2nd Floor
1 East Main Street / Auburn, WA 98001
Tel: (253) 931-3090 / Fax: (253) 804-3114
permitcenter@auburnwa.gov / www.auburnwa.gov
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (PLAT) – LETTER OF
AU THORIZATION
(A copy of this letter must be submitted for each property owner involved)
I, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington
as follows;
1. I am the owner of the property that is the subject of the application.
2. I have not appointed anyone, or have appointed _________________________________
to act as my agent regarding this application.
3. All statements, answers, and information submitted with this application are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
4. I agree to hold the City of Auburn harmless as to any claim (including costs, expenses and
attorney’s fees incurred in the investigation of such claim) which may be made by any person,
including the undersigned, and filed against the City of Auburn, but only where such claim arises out
of the reliance of the City, including its officers and employees, upon the accuracy of the information
provided to the City as part of this application.
5. I hereby grant permission for representatives of the City of Auburn and any other Federal, State, or
local unit of government with regulatory authority over the project to enter onto my property to inspect
the property, take photographs, and post public notices as required in connection with review of this
application and for compliance with the terms and conditions of permits and approvals issued for the
project.
SIGNATURE
PRINTED NAME DATE CITY and STATE WHERE SIGNED
ADDRESS
see attached Authentisign
Page 207 of 380
Form Updated 1/30/2017 5
CITY OF AUBURN PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (PLAT)
Planning & Development Department APPLICATION
Auburn City Hall Annex, 2nd Floor
1 East Main Street / Auburn, WA 98001
Tel: (253) 931-3090 / Fax: (253) 804-3114
permitcenter@auburnwa.gov / www.auburnwa.gov
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (PLAT) APPLICATION
CONCURRENT APPLICATIONS
Please indicate whether you are submitting one or more concurrent applications with this application by checking one or more
of the boxes below:
Type I Applications
(administrative decisions
made by the city which are not
subject to environmental
review under the State
Environmental Policy Act
[SEPA]):
Administrative Use Permit
Boundary Line Adjustment
Boundary Line Elimination
Building Permit
Excavation Permit
Floodplain Development
Permit
Grading Permit
Home Occupation Permit
Land Clearing Permit
Mechanical Permit
Plumbing Permit
Public Facility Extension
Agreement
Right-of-way Use Permit
Short Subdivision
Special Permit
Temporary Use Permit
(administrative)
Utility Permit
Type II Applications
(administrative decisions
made by the city which
include threshold
determinations under
SEPA):
Administrative Use
Permit
Building Permit
Floodplain Development
Permit
Grading Permit
Land Clearing Permit
Public Facility
Extension Agreement
Short Subdivision
Type III Applications
(quasi-judicial final
decisions made by the
hearing examiner
following a
recommendation by staff:
Conditional Use Permit
Preliminary Plat
Special Exceptions
Special Home
Occupation Permit
Substantial Shoreline
Development Permit
Surface Mining Permit
Temporary Use Permit
Variance
Type IV Applications –
(quasi-judicial decisions
made by the city council
following a
recommendation by the
hearing examiner):
Rezone (site-specific)
OTHERS - as may apply:
SEPA_____________
SHORELINE EXEMPT
___________________
___________________
X
x
Page 208 of 380
Form Updated 1/30/2017 6
CITY OF AUBURN PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (PLAT)
Planning & Development Department APPLICATION
Auburn City Hall Annex, 2nd Floor
1 East Main Street / Auburn, WA 98001
Tel: (253) 931-3090 / Fax: (253) 804-3114
permitcenter@auburnwa.gov / www.auburnwa.gov
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (PLAT)
LAND SURVEYOR’S CERTIFICATION
NAME OF SUBDIVISION: _________________________________________________________________
REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR (COMPANY) NAME (INDIVIDUAL)
STREET ADDRESS TELEPHONE
CITY STATE ZIP E-MAIL
ENGINEER (COMPANY) NAME (INDIVIDUAL)
STREET ADDRESS TELEPHONE
CITY STATE ZIP E-MAIL
APPLICANT (COMPANY) NAME (INDIVIDUAL)
STREET ADDRESS TELEPHONE
CITY STATE ZIP E-MAIL
Land Surveyor’s Certification Land Surveyor Seal and Signature
I hereby certify that the accompanying plat
has been inspected by me and conforms to all
rules and regulations of the platting resolution
and standards for Auburn, Washington.
SIGNATURE:_____________________________________
PRINTED NAME:__________________________________
DATE:___________________________________________
Mitchell Auburn Plat
AHBL David Follansbee, PLS
2215 N. 30th Street #300 253-383-2422
Tacoma WA 98403 dfollansbee@ahbl.com
AHBL Matt Weber, PE
2215 N. 30th Street #300 253-383-2422
Tacoma WA 98403 mweber@ahbl.com
AHBL Matt Weber, PE
2215 N. 30th Street #300 253-383-2422
Tacoma WA 98403 mweber@ahbl.com
Page 209 of 380
Page 210 of 380
_______________________________Sincerely, J. Matthew Weber, PE Page 211 of 380
NOTICE OF APPLICATION (NOA) and
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
The Summit at Kendall Ridge 17-Lot Preliminary Plat
SEP18-0007 / PLT18-0001 / VAR19-0006
The City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Application (NOA) and Determination of Non-Significance
(DNS) for the following described project. The permit applications and listed studies may be
reviewed at the Auburn Department of Community Development at 1 E Main St., 2 nd Floor,
Customer Service Center, Auburn, WA 98001 and by visiting www.auburnwa.gov/landuse.
Proposal: Preliminary plat application to subdivide 4.5 acres into 17 single-family residential lots.
The site is zoned R-5, Residential, which allows four to five lots per acre, providing for a minimum
density of 18 dwelling units and a base density of 24 dwelling units. A minimum density deviation
has been requested to accommodate a minimum density of 17 units. The proposed lots range in
size from 4,250 square feet (SF) to 5,126 SF. A critical areas variance is requested to reduce a
portion of an onsite and offset wetland buffer by more than 10 percent to accommodate the
construction of the access road for the proposed plat. An administrative variance to the
development standards for lot area and/or lot width (affecting four lots total). has been requested.
Roadways to be constructed include “Road A” which will run perpendicular to 133rd Ave. SE,
“Road B” which will extend off of Road A, and two private access tracts, Tract E and Tra ct D,
stemming off of Road A and Road B respectively. An emergency vehicle access tract will connect
Road A to 132nd Ave. SE.
Location: The project site is located at 30440 132nd Ave. SE, see Vicinity Map below. King Co.
Parcel Nos. 1021059059 and 1021059095.
Notice of Application: October 17, 2019
Application Complete: May 1, 2019
Permit Application: May 7, 2018
File Nos. SEP18-0007
PLT18-0001
VAR19-0006
Related File No. VAR18-0003
Applicant: Matt Weber, PE / Sheri Greene
AHBL
2215 N 30th St., Suite 300
Tacoma, WA 98403
Property Owner: Phil Mitchell
Mitchell Development II, LLC
910 Traffic Ave.
Sumner, WA 98390
Studies/Plans Submitted With Application:
Revised SEPA Checklist, AHBL, September 25, 2019
EXHIBIT 4
Page 212 of 380
NOTICE OF APPLICATION DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
SEP18-0007 / PLT18-0001 / VAR19-0006 (Continued)
Page 2 of 3
Preliminary Civil Plans, AHBL, September 25, 2019
School Access & Route Plan, AHBL, October 15, 2018
Geotechnical Report, South Sound Consulting, August 27, 2019
Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan, AHBL, September 2019
Wetland Delineation Report, Theresa Dusek Consulting, March 29, 2018
Wetland Buffer Mitigation Enhancement Report, Theresa Dusek Consulting, June 24,
2019
Other Permits, Plans, and Approvals Needed:
Administrative Variance, Road Deviation Request(s), Minimum Density Deviation
Request, Public Facility Extension (FAC) / Grading Permit(s)
Statement of Consistency and List of Applicable Development Regulations: This proposal
is subject to and shall be consistent with the Auburn City Code, Comprehensive Plan, and Public
Works Design and Construction Standards.
Lead Agency: City of Auburn
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant
adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required
under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental
checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the
public on request.
Public Comment Period: This may be your only opportunity to comment on the environmental
impact of the proposal. All persons may comment on this application. This DNS is issued under
WAC 197-11-355; the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date issued
below. Comments must be in writing and submitted by 5:00 PM on November 1, 2019 to the
mailing address of 25 W Main St., Auburn, WA, 98001. Any person wishing to become a party of
record, shall include in their comments that they wish to receive notice of and participate in any
hearings, if relevant, and request a copy of decisions once made.
Any person aggrieved of the City's determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City Clerk at
25 W Main St., Auburn, WA 98001-4998 within 14 days of the close of the comment period, or by
5:00 PM on November 15, 2019.
Public Hearing: To be scheduled.
For questions regarding this project, please contact Alexandria D. Teague, Planner II, at
planning@auburnwa.gov or 253-931-3088.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jeff Tate
POSITION/TITLE: Director, Department of Community Development
ADDRESS: 25 W Main St.
Auburn, Washington 98001
253-931-3090
DATE ISSUED: October 17, 2019 SIGNATURE:
Page 213 of 380
NOTICE OF APPLICATION DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
SEP18-0007 / PLT18-0001 / VAR19-0006 (Continued)
Page 3 of 3
Note: This determination does not constitute approval of the proposal. Approval of the proposal
can only be made by the legislative or administrative body vested with that authority. The
proposal is required to meet all applicable regulations.
Proposed Preliminary Plat Layout
Page 214 of 380
CITY OF AUBURN SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Planning & Development Department
Auburn City Hall Annex, 2nd Floor
1 East Main Street
Auburn, Washington 98001-4998
Tel: 253.931.3090
Fax: 253.804.3114
permitcenter@auburnwa.gov
www.auburnwa.gov
SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
2. Name of Applicant:
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
A. Applicant: Agent (if applicable):
4. Date checklist prepared:
5. Agency requesting checklist:
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this
proposal? If yes, explain.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly
related to this proposal.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly
affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
11. Give a brief, complete description of your 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 need not repeat those answers on this page.
The Summit at Kendall Ridge
Sheri Greene, AHBL Engineers
2215 N. 30th Street #300
Tacoma WA 98403
(253) 383-2422
May 3, 2018/Revised April 10, 2019
City of Auburn
Not at this time.
SEPA Checklist, Wetland Delineation Report dated March 2018 by Theresa Dusek, Geotechnical
Report prepared by South Sound Geotechnical, Wetland Delineation Report prepared by Theresa
Dusek.
Construction will commence upon issuance of the Civil Site Improvement (FAC & GRA) permit
from the City of Auburn.
There are no other applications affecting this property at this time.
SEPA Determination, Preliminary Plat approval, Road Standard Deviations, Administrative
Variance, Critical Areas Variance, Civil Site Improvement Permit, Storm and Utility
(Water and Sewer) permits, wetland mitigation approval, and NPDES permit.
The Summit at Kendall Ridge Plat is located on approximately 4.5 acres in the City of Auburn, in King
County.The site is located at 30440 132nd Avenue East, on parcels 1021059059 and 1021059095. The project
proposes subdividing the site into seventeen (17) single family lots.
/Revised September 25, 2019
Page 215 of 380
Environmental Checklist (Continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
2
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your
proposed project, including 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 reasonably available. While you should submit
any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with
any permit applications related to this checklist.
ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
A. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other.
B. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know
the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
D. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
E. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of
fill.
F. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
G. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)?
H. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth.
2. Air
A. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial
wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give
approximate quantities if know.
The project is located at 30440 132nd Avenue East in Auburn, parcels 1021059059 and 1021059095.
Access to the site is currently a private shared driveway off of 132nd Avenue East.
The western portion of the site is relatively flat, with site grades rising gently to the east then
sloping down to the east and south towards State Highway 18.
The steepest slope on the site is approximately 2:1 along the exterior edge of the pond berms.
The steepest existing slopes off site in the WSDOT SR18 ROW is 70%.
The USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil Map of King County, Washington maps soils on the
property as Alderwood gravelly sandy loan, a soil with very low to low permeability.
A preliminary geotechnical reconnaissance letter prepared by South Sound
Geotechnical Consulting on February 1, 2018 states there were no indicators of current or
historic landslides on the east-facing slope.
Preliminary grading plans indicate approximately 5,700 cy cut and 3,200 cy fill will be required, for a net of
2,500 cy cut.
Yes, erosion
could occur because of clearing and construction activities. Minimal construction will occur in
sensitive areas (wetland buffer, steep slopes) and the implementation of a temporary sediment and erosion
control plan using Best Management Practices and implementation of the wetland mitigation plan
should mitigate impacts.
The proposed roadways will create approximately 22% impervious surfaces. It is anticipated
the homes and driveways will not create more than 5,000 sq. ft. impervious surface per lot.
Measures to reduce or control
erosion include clearly marking the clearing limits with high visibility fencing and providing perimeter
protection through the use of silt fencing. Additionally, a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(CSWPPP) identifying specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be submitted in association with
the civil site improvement (FAC) plans.
Construction would result in a temporary increase in air pollution, including
emissions from equipment and dust from construction activities. Dust controls will include watering
soils to prevent blowing of dust. Construction vehicles will be turned off when not in use to help
control emissions. Construction activities and equipment will follow the appropriate regulations
for controlling emissions to the air. Post-construction emissions would include emissions from
vehicle trips associated with the development.
7,400 cy cut and 4,000 cy fill for a net 3,400 cy export.
Page 216 of 380
Environmental Checklist (Continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
3
B. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odors that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
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, wetlands): If yes, describe type and provide names. If
appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
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.
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.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description,
purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan.
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.
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.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources,
if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing any toxic chemicals; agricultural; etc.).
Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be
served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) is (are) expected to serve.
There are no known off-site sources of emissions or odors observed that might affect this
proposal.
Potential BMPs
include using water sprays or other non-toxic dust control methods on unpaved roadways, preventing the tracking out
of mud onto public streets. covering soil piles when practical, and minimizing work during periods of high winds.
Additionally, to minimize air quality and odor issues caused by tailpipe emissions. BMPs will be used. Such BMPs
include maintaining engines of construction equipment while also minimizing the idling of construction equipment.
There is a Category III wetland located on the western portion of the site. See Wetland Delineation Report prepared
by Theresa Dusak dated March 29, 2018.
Yes. See attached proposed site plan.
No dredge or fill will be placed or removed from the wetland.
No.
The site does not lie within the 100-year floodplain.
No, the project will not discharge waste
No, the project will not withdraw from or discharge into groundwater. The development site will be
provided water service by City of Auburn.
materials into surface waters.
The existing septic system will be decommissioned. City of Auburn sewer service will be extended to the site
to serve the proposed plat.
A Wetland Buffer Enhancement Report prepared by Dusek Consulting revised June 24, 2019 provides
mitigation for impacts to the wetland buffer.
Page 217 of 380
Environmental Checklist (Continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
4
C. Water Runoff (including storm water)
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm 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.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
D. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any
4. Plants
A. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
Deciduous Tree: Alder, Maple, Aspen, Other
Evergreen Tree: Fir, Cedar, Pine, Other
Shrubs
Grass
Pasture
Crop or Grain
Wet Soil Plants: Cattail, Buttercup, Bullrush, Skunk Cabbage, Other
Water Plants: Water Lily, Eelgrass, Milfoil, Other
Other Types of Vegetation
B. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site:
D. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on
the site, if any:
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: geese, ducks, crows, etc.
Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other:
B. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
No waste materials will enter ground or surface waters as a result of
this proposal.
This proposal will provide source control of pollutants through the use of a modular wetland prior
to discharge to the onsite pond. onsite vault and ultimately the WSDOT system in Highway 18. The project is located
within the critical area known as Ground Water Protection Zone 4. The project will implement best management practices
for water resource protection and will utilize a modular wetland system to provide treatment.
x
x
x
x
x
Most of the vegetation within the project area will be removed. The majority of trees to be removed are Alder and Cottonwood, and
are not considered significant trees. There are some Maples and Firs within the project site that exceed 6" diameter and will need to be
removed. If required, an alternative landscape plan will be submitted to the city for approval. Vegetation located within the wetland
and wetland buffer will remain and will be enhanced per the wetland mitigation plan. Vegetation and significant trees
within the slope area will remain. See Existing Features Plan/Field Topography Plan.
None known.
Landscape design and buffers will be in accordance with the City of Auburn Municipal Code. Street trees to be provided on both sides
of the right of way with spacing 1-1/2 times the tree canopy. Wetland buffer enhancement will be provided.
Storm pond landscaping will meet or exceed the requirements of the 2014 Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual and the supplemental
City of Auburn Stormwater Manual. A formal landscape plan will be prepared and submitted to the city for review concurrently with the
FAC plans.
Mice
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) online
mapping system does not map any threatened or endangered species in the area.
The site is within the Pacific Flyway of Migratory Birds.
The project is in preliminary design but the primary source of runoff will be stormwater.
Runoff from Lots 1 - 10 roofdrains will discharge to the west detention pond then released at a
controlled rate to the existing wetland. The rest of the site will be conveyed to a modular wetland for
treatment, then conveyed to a detention vault where it will be detained and released at a controlled rate
to the WSDOT system in Highway 18 via an overland pipe. See Preliminary Drainage Plan and Preliminary
Storm Report for full description.
Page 218 of 380
Environmental Checklist (Continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
5
D. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
6. Energy and Natural Resources
A. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed
project’s energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
B. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally
describe.
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:
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.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required:
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
8. Noise
A. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment,
operation, other)?
B. 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.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impact, if any:
9. Land and Shoreline Use
A. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
No impacts are anticipated to wildlife, therefore no special measures are proposed.
The completed project will utilize electricity and natural gas to provide for
heating, cooling, and lighting needs.
No, this proposal will not have an impact on adjacent property’s ability to utilize
solar energy since there will be no structures near the property line.
The project will meet the 2015 Washington State Energy Code (WSEC). Other
conservation features, such as LED lighting and low-flow plumbing fixtures, will
be determined upon development.
There is potential for construction equipment and personal vehicles to leak fuel, oil, or other fluids necessary to
operate the equipment/vehicles. This risk is typical of construction activities and vehicle trips associated with the
development, and is minimal. The site will provide water quality treatment prior to discharge of stormwater,
further minimizing the risk of impacts.
No special emergency services will be required other than those normally
provided such as police and fire protection.
None are anticipated to be required. Specialized erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented if
contaminated soils are detected during the construction process. Standard dust control measures will be implemented
to mitigate dust emissions resulting from construction activities. Pursuant to State Law, 811 will be contacted prior to
any digging activities to prevent damage to on-site utilities.
There are no off-site sources of noise that will impact this proposal. The primary
source of noise in the area is generated from vehicular traffic along SR-18.
Temporary, short-term noise impacts typical of construction projects will occur with operation of equipment during
construction. Construction activities will be restricted to the hours pursuant to City of Auburn’s noise regulations. Long
term noise will be minimal, and will be typical of residential developments.
To mitigate general noise impacts during the construction phases, measures such as locating stationary equipment away
from receiving properties, limiting construction hours to the appropriate City of Auburn ordinance, turn off idling
construction equipment, require contractors to rigorously maintain all equipment, and train construction crews to avoid
unnecessarily loud actions near residential areas will be employed.
The site is currently a single family residence. To the west and south are single family residences
(Kendall Ridge). To the north is a single family residence and Raceway Mini Storage, and to the
east is SR-18.Page 219 of 380
Environmental Checklist (Continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
6
B. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe:
C. Describe any structures on the site:
D. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
E. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
F. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
G. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
H. Has any part of the site been classified as an “environmentally sensitive” area? If so, specify:
I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
J. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
K. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any:
HOUSING
A. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income
housing.
Not to our knowledge.
There is a single family residence on the site.
The single family residence will be demolished.
R-5
Residential
Not applicable
There is a small wetland on the western boundary of the site and steep slopes along the
eastern boundary.
It is unknown at this time but the number of people would be typical of a single family
residential neighborhood.
None.
No specific measures are proposed.
The proposal meets the intent of the R-5 zone and is consistent with the neighboring residential uses (Kendall Ridge).
The project proposes 17 residential lots. The constructed homes will be middle income housing.
Page 220 of 380
Environmental Checklist (Continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
7
B. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-
income housing.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
AESTHETICS
A. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior
building material(s) proposed?
B. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
LIGHT AND GLARE
1. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
2. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
3. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
4. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
RECREATION
1. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
2. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
The existing home will be demolished.
No specific measures are proposed. the proposal is consistent with R-5 zoning.
The project is in preliminary design but the homes will not exceed the maximum allowed height.
The view on the development site will transition from a single family residence to an attractive neighborhood of
homes. The view onto the property will be screened by perimeter landscape buffering.
Potential aesthetic impacts to adjacent property owners will be mitigated through
the use of landscape buffering/required setbacks.
Lighting will be produced after dark from exterior building lighting, typical of
single family residences.
No. Lighting will be directed downward so as not to interfere with views or
provide glare.
There are no off-site sources of light or glare that will impact the proposal.
Lighting fixtures will be shielded and lighting cast downward to reduce light and
glare impacts. All lighting fixtures will meet County requirements for light spill.
Hazelwood Elementary and Rainier Middle School are less than one mile from the site and have
baseball fields and a track that are available to the public during non-school hours.
None.
Page 221 of 380
Environmental Checklist (Continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
8
3. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation including recreation opportunities to be
provided by the project or applicant, if any:
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
1. 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:
2. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance
known to be on or next to the site.
3. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
TRANSPORTATION
1. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system.
Show on site plans, if any.
2. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit
stop?
3. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate?
4. 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):
5. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally
describe:
6. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur.
7. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
No special measures are proposed.
There are no known buildings, structures, or sites within the immediate vicinity of the project site that are
listed on national, state, or local preservation registers.
There are no landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use/occupation on the project site.
The Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Historic Property Inventory
Report was reviewed to assess the presence of historic features.
If cultural or archeological objects are found during site preparation work, the Washington State Department of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation will be notified, and appropriate measures will be taken.
The site is currently accessed through a shared driveway off of 132nd. The existing driveway will only be utilized
as a private access to the neighboring property to the north and for EVA access. A deviation request has been
submitted to reduce the required half street improvements. Residents will enter the site through the
existing Kendall Ridge Development on 133rd Ave SE.
The closest transit stop served by King County Metro Transit is located at 124th Avenue SE and
SE 304th Street, approximately one mile away.
Each residence will have a garage and a driveway for additional off street parking.
Yes. The project will improve 30 feet of the existing 60 foot access easement. Lots will be accessed
by two cul de sacs and two shared access facilities.
No.
Based on 17 single family residences it is estimated approximately 170 trips per day would be generated by
the completed project with 17 trips during peak hours.
Traffic impact fees will be paid to the City of Auburn to mitigate any impacts.
Page 222 of 380
Environmental Checklist (Continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
9
PUBLIC SERVICES
1. 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:
2. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impact on public services, if any:
UTILITIES
1. Circle utilities currently available at the site:
2. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general
construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed:
SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying
on them to make its decision.
OWNER/AGENT SIGNATURE:
DATE SUBMITTED: _ _
The proposal will not create a significant new need for these services.
Impact fees assessed by the City of Auburn will mitigate any impacts resulting from the proposed development.
Gas, power, cable and water are currently available at the site. The existing residence is currently served by a
septic system.
The project proposes the extension of water and sewer mains to the site from Kendall Ridge.
5/4/2018 revised April 10, 2019 revised September 25, 2019
Page 223 of 380
REQUEST TO PUBLISH
______________________________________________________________________________
Please publish the following Notice of Application and Determination of Non-Significance in the
Seattle Times on October 17, 2019.
Bill the City of Auburn: City of Auburn
ATTN: City Clerk
25 West Main
Auburn, WA. 98001
An "Affidavit of Publication" is requested for this billing. Thank you.
Please publish below the line only.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
NOTICE OF APPLICATION (NOA) and DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS),
The Summit at Kendall Ridge 17-Lot Preliminary Plat, SEP18-0007 / PLT18-0001 / VAR19-
0006 The City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Application (NOA) and Determination of Non-
Significance (DNS) for the following described project. The permit applications and listed studies
may be reviewed at the Auburn Department of Community Development at 1 E Main St., 2nd
Floor, Customer Service Center, Auburn, WA 98001 or www.auburnwa.gov/landuse. Proposal:
Preliminary plat application to subdivide 4.5 acres into 17 single-family residential lots. The site
is zoned R-5, Residential, which allows four to five lots per acre, providing for a minimum
density of 18 dwelling units and a base density of 24 dwelling units. A minimum density
deviation has been requested to accommodate a minimum density of 17 units. The proposed
lots range in size from 4,250 square feet (SF) to 5,162 SF. A critical areas variance is requested
to reduce a portion of an onsite and offset wetland buffer by more than 10 percent to
accommodate the construction of the access road for the proposed plat. An administrative
variance to the development standards for lot area and/or lot width (affecting four lots total) has
been requested. Roadways to be constructed include “Road A” which will run perpendicular to
133rd Ave. SE, “Road B” which will extend off of Road A, and two private access tracts, Tract E
and Tract D, stemming off of Road A and Road B respectively. An emergency vehicle access
tract will connect Road A to 132nd Ave. SE. Location: The project site is located at 30440
132nd Ave. SE. King Co. Parcel Nos. 1021059059 and 1021059095. Notice of Application:
October 17, 2019 Notice of Complete: May 1, 2019 Permit Application: May 7, 2018 File
Nos. SEP18-0007, PLT18-0001, VAR19-0006 Related File No. VAR18-0003 Applicant: Matt
Weber, PE / Sheri Greene, AHBL, 2215 N 30th St., Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403 Property
Owner: Phil Mitchell, Mitchell Development II, LLC, 910 Traffic Ave., Sumner, WA 98390
Studies/Plans Submitted With Application: Revised SEPA Checklist, Preliminary Civil Plans,
School Access & Route Plan, Geotechnical Report, Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan, Wetland
Delineation Report, Wetland Buffer Mitigation Enhancement Report Other Permits, Plans, and
Approvals Needed: Administrative Variance, Road Deviation Request(s), Minimum Density
Deviation Request, Public Facility Extension (FAC)/Grading Permit(s) Statement of
Consistency and List of Applicable Development Regulations: This proposal is subject to
and shall be consistent with the Auburn City Code, Comprehensive Plan, and Public Works
Design and Construction Standards. Lead Agency: City of Auburn. The lead agency for this
proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the
environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW
43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist
and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on
request. Public Comment Period: This may be your only opportunity to comment on the
environmental impact of the proposal. All persons may comment on this application. This DNS
is issued under WAC 197-11-355; the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from
Page 224 of 380
the date issued below. Comments must be in writing and submitted by 5:00 PM on November
1, 2019 to the mailing address of 25 W Main St., Auburn, WA, 98001. Any person wishing to
become a party of record, shall include in their comments that they wish to receive notice of and
participate in any hearings, if relevant, and request a copy of decisions once made. Any person
aggrieved of the City's determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City Clerk at 25 W
Main St., Auburn, WA 98001-4998 within 14 days of the close of the comment period, or by 5:00
PM on November 15, 2019. Public Hearing: To be scheduled. For questions regarding this
project, please contact Alexandria D. Teague, Planner II, at planning@auburnwa.gov or 253-
931-3088. Date of Notice: October 17, 2019
Page 225 of 380
Page 226 of 380
Page 227 of 380
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Summit at Kendall Ridge 17-Lot Preliminary Plat
PLT18-0001 / VAR19-0006
The City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Public Hearing for the following described project. The
project application and listed studies may be reviewed by contacting the Department of Community
Development at planning@auburnwa.gov or by visiting www.auburnwa.gov/landuse.
Proposal: Preliminary plat application to subdivide approximately 4.5 acres into 17 single-family
residential lots. The site is zoned R-5, Residential, which allows 4-5 dwelling units per acre. The
proposed lots range in size from 4,370 square feet (sq. ft.) to 5,697 sq. ft. The plat will extend a new
public road (“Road A”) approximately 615 feet east of 133rd Ave. SE which will terminate in a cul-de-
sac. Another new public road (Road B) and one shared access and utility tract (E) will extend off of
Road A. Another shared access and utility tract (Tract D) will extend off of Road B. Stormwater will
be managed onsite via one private stormwater detention pond (Tract B) and one stormwater
detention vault (Tract C). Water and sewer will be extended through the site to service each lot. An
existing wetland and its associated buffer, and a geologic hazard area will be placed into separate
tracts (Tract A and Tract F respectively).
Location: The project site is located west of 132nd Ave. S and north of SE 306th St., within NW¼ of
Section 10, Township 21, Range 5. King County Assessor Parcel Nos. 1021059059 and
1021059095.
Notice of Public Hearing: August 6, 2020
Notice of Application: October 17, 2019
Application Complete: May 1, 2019
Permit Application: May 7, 2018
File Nos. PLT18-0001 / VAR19-0006
Applicant: Matt Weber, PE / Sheri Greene
AHBL, Inc.
2215 N 30th St., Suite 300
Tacoma, WA 98403
Property Owner: Phil Mitchell
Mitchell Development II, LLC
910 Traffic Ave.
Sumner, WA 98390
Public Hearing: The Hearing Examiner will conduct a public hearing on the preliminary plat
on August 19, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. The public hearing will be held virtually and telephonically.
To attend the meeting virtually please enter the meeting ID into the ZOOM app or call into the
meeting at the phone number listed below. Per City of Auburn Resolution No. 5533 the
location for Hearing Examiner meetings will be virtual until King County enters into Phase 3
of the Governor's Safe Start Reopening Plan. Join the ZOOM meeting at the following web
address: https://zoom.us/j/95658282714. Meeting ID: 956 5828 2714, or via one tap mobile:
+12532158782, 956 58282714# US (Tacoma). Dial by your location: +1 253 215 8782 US
(Tacoma) or 877 853 5257 US Toll-free or 888 475 4499 US Toll-free; Meeting ID: 956 5828
2714. Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ab305berzW.
EXHIBIT 5
Page 228 of 380
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLT18-0001 / VAR19-0006 (Continued)
Page 2 of 2
Written comments may be either emailed or mailed attention to the contact person below to 25 W
Main St., Auburn WA, 98001 (please note, due to the current Governor’s Stay Home Stay Safe
order, mailed comments may not be received by City Staff on time for inclusion in the packet
provided to the Hearing Examiner), or submitted at the public hearing by email. For citizens with
speech, sight, or hearing disabilities wishing to review documents pertaining to this hearing should
contact the person below within 10 calendar days prior to the hearing. Each request will be
considered individually according to the type of request, the availability of resources, and the
financial ability of the City to provide the requested services or equipment. For questions regarding
this project, please contact Alexandria D. Teague, AICP, Planner II, at planning@auburnwa.gov or
253-931-3088.
Vicinity Map
Proposed Preliminary Plat Layout
Page 229 of 380
REQUEST TO PUBLISH
___________________________________________________________________________________
Please publish the following Notice of Public Hearing in the Seattle Times on August 6, 2020.
Bill the City of Auburn: City of Auburn
ATTN: City Clerk
25 West Main
Auburn, WA. 98001
An "Affidavit of Publication" is requested for this billing. Thank you.
Please publish below the line only.
___________________________________________________________________________________
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Public Hearing for
the following described project. The project application and listed studies may be reviewed by
contacting the Department of Community Development at planning@auburnwa.gov or by
visiting www.auburnwa.gov/landuse. Proposal: Preliminary plat application to subdivide
approximately 4.5 acres into 17 single-family residential lots. The site is zoned R-5, Residential,
which allows 4-5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed lots range in size from 4,370 square feet
(sq. ft.) to 5,697 sq. ft. The plat will extend a new public road (“Road A”) approximately 615 feet
east of 133rd Ave. SE which will terminate in a cul-de-sac. Another new public road (Road B)
and one shared access and utility tract (E) will extend off of Road A. Another shared access and
utility tract (Tract D) will extend off of Road B. Stormwater will be managed onsite via one
private stormwater detention pond (Tract B) and one stormwater detention vault (Tract C).
Water and sewer will be extended through the site to service each lot. An existing wetland and
its associated buffer, and a geologic hazard area will be placed into separate tracts (Tract A and
Tract F respectively). Location: The project site is located west of 132nd Ave. S and north of SE
306th St., within NW¼ of Section 10, Township 21, Range 5. King County Assessor Parcel Nos.
1021059059 and 1021059095. Notice of Public Hearing: August 6, 2020 Notice of
Application: October 17, 2019 Notice of Complete: May 1, 2019 Permit Application: May 7,
2018 File Nos. PLT18-0001, VAR19-0006 Applicant: Matt Weber, PE / Sheri Greene, AHBL,
Inc., 2215 N 30th St., Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403 Property Owner: Phil Mitchell, Mitchell
Development II, LLC, 910 Traffic Ave., Sumner, WA 98390 Public Hearing: The Hearing
Examiner will conduct a public hearing on the preliminary plat on August 19, 2020 at 5:30 p.m.
The public hearing will be held virtually and telephonically. To attend the meeting
virtually please enter the meeting ID into the ZOOM app or call into the meeting at the
phone number listed below. Per City of Auburn Resolution No. 5533 the location for
Hearing Examiner meetings will be virtual until King County enters into Phase 3 of the
Governor's Safe Start Reopening Plan. Join the ZOOM meeting at the following web
address: https://zoom.us/j/95658282714. Meeting ID: 956 5828 2714, or via one tap mobile:
+12532158782, 956 58282714# US (Tacoma). Dial by your location: +1 253 215 8782 US
(Tacoma) or 877 853 5257 US Toll-free or 888 475 4499 US Toll-free; Meeting ID: 956 5828
2714. Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ab305berzW . Written comments may be
either emailed or mailed attention to the contact person below to 25 W Main St., Auburn WA,
98001 (please note, due to the current Governor’s Stay Home Stay Safe order, mailed
comments may not be received by City Staff on time for inclusion in the packet provided to the
Hearing Examiner), or submitted at the public hearing by email. The deadline for comments is
August 19, 2020 by 5:30 p.m. For citizens with speech, sight, or hearing disabilities wishing to
review documents pertaining to this hearing should contact the person below within 10 calendar
days prior to the hearing. Each request will be considered individually according to the type of
request, the availability of resources, and the financial ability of the City to provide the requested
Page 230 of 380
services or equipment. For questions regarding this project, please contact Alexandria D.
Teague, AICP, Planner II, at planning@auburnwa.gov or 253-931-3088. Issued: August 6,
2020
Page 231 of 380
Exhibit 6. Written Comment(s) and Received and City Response(s) Coversheet
EXHIBIT 6
COVERSHEET
Page 232 of 380
VIA MAIL
January 14, 2020
Kendall Ridge Homeowners Association
c/o Around the Clock Inc.
716 W Meeker St., Suite 101
Kent, WA 98032
Re: Summit at Kendall Ridge Preliminary Plat –
King County Parcel Nos. 1021059059; 1021059095 (File Nos. PLT18-0001, SEP18-
0007, VAR18-0003, VAR19-0006)
Good afternoon:
Thank you for your comment regarding the Summit at Kendall Ridge Preliminary Plat. Staff has the
following responses:
1) Street Access
The ingress/egress easement that connects the project to 132nd Ave SE is of insufficient
width. The ingress/egress easement can be viewed on the “Preliminary Civil Plans” (please
visit the project’s public land use notice page – www.auburnwa.gov/landuse). While the
ingress/egress easement is 30 feet in width, 5 ft. of the easement is encumbered by a
drainage easement and cannot be built in.
A new full (width) “Local Residential” classified street requires 50 feet of right-of-way (ROW).
“Half-street improvements” require 35 feet of ROW. The applicant has requested a deviation
from the City’s engineering design standards to reduce the width of the half-street
improvements to fit within the available 30 ft. The easement is, however, of sufficient width to
serve as an emergency vehicle access.
A portion of the gravel road is within an ingress/egress easement of which the underlying
property belongs to the property owner to the north (i.e. Raceway Mini Storage). No
ingress/egress easement can be converted into public ROW without consent of the private
property owner. Therefore, the new local residential road that will serve the proposed plat
cannot connect to 132nd Ave SE for “pass-thru traffic”.
Tract K will be converted into ROW as noted on the Kendall Ridge Plat (enclosed) which
states that Tract K shall be owned by the Kendall Ridge HOA until such time as the City of
Auburn requests a deed to the public for roadway purposes. A snippet from the plat is below.
The deeding of Tract K to the City will not occur until the roadway has been constructed.
Additionally, 170 trips not vehicles are proposed. 133rd Ave SE is also classified as a local
residential classified road. Per the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan (Chapter 2 –
KENDALL RIDGE HOA PUBLIC COMMENT
Page 233 of 380
Page 2
“Local Streets”), a local residential road is intended to accommodate up to 1,200 vehicles per
day ADT [average daily traffic].
Lastly, whenever possible the City requires and/or recommends connectivity between
adjacent subdivision, commercial hubs, recreation facilities, and even other public roads.
This is a policy contained in the Land Use Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan (policy
no. LU-1 a.)
2) Wetland/Sensitive Area Buffer
Similar to the development for Kendall Ridge Plat, the wetland and its associated buffer will
be placed into a separate tract (Tract A), encumbered by a native growth protection
easement, and will observe a 25 ft. wetland buffer abutting proposed lots and the west
detention pond. The construction of the new local residential road will result in the reduction
of a portion of the wetland buffer. Since the wetland buffer spans the subject project as well
as the Kendall Ridge plat, buffer reduction will occur both on-site, and off-site with the
conversion of Tract K into ROW. Please reference the enclosed Kendall Ridge Plat and the
“Preliminary Civil Plans”. The wetland buffer will be enlarged in the northern and southern
portion of the buffer to offset the necessary reductions. The applicant has also prepared a
wetland mitigation plan. Please reference the “Wetland Buffer Mitigation Enhancement
Report”.
Sincerely,
Alexandria D. Teague, Planner II
Department of Community Development
Page 234 of 380
Page 235 of 380
From:Alexandria Teague
To:"Sandy Austin"
Subject:RE: Kendall Ridge Subdivision. File number PTL 18-0001
Date:Friday, December 20, 2019 2:05:58 PM
Good afternoon Ms. Austin,
Thank you for your comment. I have passed it onto the applicant’s representative. Staff will also
include you as a party of record for the project.
Sincerely,
Alexandria
Alexandria D. Teague, AICP, Planner II
Community Development
City of Auburn | www.auburnwa.gov
253.931.3088 | ateague@auburnwa.gov
Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001
Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 (Click Here for Map)
Customer Service Survey | https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XNSL95J
Application Forms | http://www.auburnwa.gov/services/resource_library/forms.htm
Zoning Maps | http://www.auburnwa.gov/services/resource_library/maps.htm
From: Sandy Austin <austingirl1490@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 3:46 PM
To: Alexandria Teague <ateague@auburnwa.gov>
Subject: Kendall Ridge Subdivision. File number PTL 18-0001
CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be
careful opening links and attachments
Hello Alexandria,
My name is Sandy Austin I own the property located at 30430 132nd Ave. S.E. Auburn, Wa
98092, which is immediately adjacent to the North of the proposed Kendall Ridge Subdivision
file number PTL18-0001. I see both water and sewer is proposed along our shared property
AUSTIN PUBLIC COMMENT
Page 236 of 380
line. In the event that my 5.3 Acre property develops, it would be beneficial to have water and
sewer connection points available to connect to without having to dig up the future Kendall
Ridge road surface to make those connections. The sewer proposed is particularly deep and so
it would save a fair bit of trouble and disruption to the future Kendall Ridge residents if a
sewer stub were provided extending North to the property line from SSMH#3. Additionally it
would be beneficial and simple to provide a Northern water stub there near the intersection of
proposed plat Road A and Road B.
My request is that the proposed water and sewer service include extensions (stubs) to our
shared (Northern) property line in order to facilitate future development of my property which
will depend upon being able to connect to these future utilities.
Please continue to include me as a party of record for this proposed project (PTL 18-001) and
contact me at 253-839-1490 or by email if you have any questions.
Thank You for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Sandy Austin
29205 2nd Ave. S.W.
Federal Way, Wa 98023
austingirl1490@gmail.com
253-839-1490
Page 237 of 380
VIA MAIL
January 14, 2020
Jason McKinney
30504 133rd Ave SE
Auburn, WA 98092
Re: Summit at Kendall Ridge Preliminary Plat –
King County Parcel Nos. 1021059059; 1021059095 (File Nos. PLT18-0001, SEP18-
0007, VAR18-0003, VAR19-0006)
Good afternoon:
Thank you for your comment regarding the Summit at Kendall Ridge Preliminary Plat. Staff has the
following responses:
1. As proposed, 170 trips not vehicles are proposed. 133rd Ave SE is classified as a local
residential road. Per the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan (Chapter 2 – “Local
Streets”), a local residential road is intended to accommodate between 200 to 1,200 vehicles
per day ADT [average daily traffic].
2. Whenever possible the City requires and/or recommends connectivity between adjacent
subdivision, commercial hubs, recreation facilities, and other public roads. This is a policy
contained in the Land Use Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan (policy no. LU-1 a.)
The conversion of Tract K into ROW will include the construction of curb, gutter, and
sidewalk and to extend the existing sidewalk to provide a non-motorized connection to the
proposed development. To accommodate pedestrian access, the City may recommend, as a
condition of approval, that ADA ramps are constructed at the corner between 133rd Ave. SE
and 133rd Ct SE. However, City policy is to not mark crosswalks at uncontrolled (e.g. no stop
signs, no traffic signal, etc.) intersections.
3. 133rd Ave. SE is classified as a local residential street by the City, and is a public street. As
such, it has a capacity to accommodate up to 1,200 vehicle per day, which equates to
approximately 120 single family residential units. 133rd Ave. SE currently provides access to
21 existing homes. The additional traffic generated by the proposed 17-lot subdivision, would
not exceed the capacity of the existing roadway, therefore, no mitigation is required.
4. Auburn City Code section 17.10.120(B)(3) is not applicable because a new public road is
being created. This section of code refers to panhandle lots being created within a
subdivision. The project does include two access tracts (shown as Tract D and Tract E on
the plans). Both of these tracts meet applicable City design standards and each serve fewer
than 6 lots. The “Preliminary Civil Plans” depicting Tracts D and E can be viewed on the
project’s public land use notice page (please visit www.auburnwa.gov/landuse).
5. Tract K will be converted into ROW as noted on the Kendall Ridge Plat (enclosed) which
states that Tract K shall be owned by the Kendall Ridge HOA until such time as the City of
Auburn requests a deed to the public for roadway purposes. A snippet from the plat is below.
The conversion Tract K into ROW will include the construction of curb, gutter, and sidewalk
to provide pedestrian access as well. The deeding of Tract K to the City will not occur until
the roadway has been constructed.
MCKINNEY PUBLIC COMMENT
Page 238 of 380
Page 2
Sincerely,
Alexandria D. Teague, Planner II
Department of Community Development
Page 239 of 380
Page 240 of 380
Page 241 of 380
From:Alexandria Teague
To:"forsetir@gmail.com"
Subject:RE: Application SEP18-0007
Date:Friday, January 17, 2020 5:00:18 PM
Good afternoon Mr. Terry,
I have forwarded your comment onto the applicant’s representative regarding the fence next to Tract K.
Sincerely,
Alexandria
Alexandria D. Teague, AICP, Planner II
Community Development
City of Auburn | www.auburnwa.gov
253.931.3088 | ateague@auburnwa.gov
Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001
Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 (Click Here for Map)
Customer Service Survey | https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XNSL95J
Application Forms | http://www.auburnwa.gov/services/resource_library/forms.htm
Zoning Maps | http://www.auburnwa.gov/services/resource_library/maps.htm
From: forsetir@gmail.com <forsetir@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 9:12 AM
To: Alexandria Teague <ateague@auburnwa.gov>
Subject: Re: Application SEP18-0007
CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and
attachments
The house that is next to Tract K will lose their fence. Is the City or builder going to move/replace the fence and
stain it?
Thanks!
Dave
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 3:02 PM Alexandria Teague <ateague@auburnwa.gov> wrote:
Good afternoon Mr. Terry,
Thank you for your comment. Staff has the following response:
The ingress/egress easement that connects the project to 132nd Ave SE is of insufficient width. The ingress/egress
easement can be viewed on the “Preliminary Civil Plans” (please visit the project’s public land use notice page –
www.auburnwa.gov/landuse). While the ingress/egress easement is 30 feet in width, 5 ft. of the easement is
encumbered by a drainage easement and cannot be built in.
TERRY PUBLIC COMMENT
Page 242 of 380
A new full (width) “Local Residential” classified street requires 50 feet of right-of-way (ROW). “Half-street improvements”
require 35 feet of ROW. The applicant has requested a deviation from the City’s engineering design standards to reduce
the width of the half-street improvements to fit within the available 30 ft. The easement is, however, of sufficient width
to serve as an emergency vehicle access.
A portion of the gravel road is within an ingress/egress easement of which the underlying property belongs to the
property owner to the north (i.e. Raceway Mini Storage). No ingress/egress easement can be converted into public ROW
without consent of the private property owner. Therefore, the new local residential road that will serve the proposed plat
cannot connect to 132nd Ave SE for “pass-thru traffic”.
Tract K will be converted into ROW as noted on the Kendall Ridge Plat (enclosed) which states that Tract K shall be owned
by the Kendall Ridge HOA until such time as the City of Auburn requests a deed to the public for roadway purposes. A
snippet from the plat is below. The deeding of Tract K to the City will not occur until the roadway has been constructed.
Sincerely,
Alexandria
Alexandria D. Teague, AICP, Planner II
Community Development
City of Auburn | www.auburnwa.gov
253.931.3088 | ateague@auburnwa.gov
Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001
Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 (Click Here for Map)
Customer Service Survey | https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XNSL95J
Application Forms | http://www.auburnwa.gov/services/resource_library/forms.htm
Zoning Maps | http://www.auburnwa.gov/services/resource_library/maps.htm
From: forsetir@gmail.com <forsetir@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 12:38 PM
To: planning@auburnwa.gov
Subject: Application SEP18-0007
CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links
and attachments
Page 243 of 380
This community is going to have a huge impact on the community to the West. You are allowing them to access
our private community streets in order to access that property. Our community will have an incredible increase in
traffic! There is a stone road that goes out to the main street. It's a shorter distance to the main road. Give them a
variance to drive out that way. There is more room on that gravel road then there is on the streets of our
community because of people parking on the street. Now we are going to have to deal with their traffic noise,
speeders, construction trucks, it goes on and on.
Thanks
David Terry
This message is private and privileged. If you are not the person meant to receive this message, please let the
sender know, then delete it. Please do not copy or send it to anyone else.
Page 244 of 380
Δ
HIGHWAY 18ROAD A
(LOCAL RESIDENTIAL)133RD AVE SE(LOCAL RESIDENTIAL)ROAD B(LOCAL RESIDENTIAL)EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS AND PRIVATE DRIVE
TRACT DWEST SHARED ACCESSTRACT EEAST SHARED ACCESSTRACT A
WETLAND132RD AVE SE(MINOR ARTERIAL)1
2
3
4 5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13 14
15
16
17
ROAD A
(LOCAL RESIDENTIAL)
TRACT B
WEST STORM
POND
TRACT F
CRITICAL GEOLOGICAL
HAZARD AREA
PARCEL #1021059079
PARCEL #1021059058
PARCEL #3814901080
KENDALL RIDGE
TRACT B
PARCEL #3814901120
PARCEL #3814901090
KENDALL RIDGE TRACT C
PARCEL #3814901110
KENDALL RIDGE
TRACT E
PARCEL #3814901100
KENDALL RIDGE TRACT D
PARCEL #3814900850
PARCEL #3814900840
PARCEL #3814900830
PARCEL #3814900820
PARCEL #3814900810
PARCEL #3814900800
PARCEL #3814900790
PARCEL #3814900780
PARCEL #3814900770PARCEL #3814900760PARCEL #3814900750PARCEL #3814900740PARCEL #3814900730
PARCEL #3814900720
PARCEL #3814900710
KENDALL RIDGE
TRACT K
16+75
15+00
16+00
0+00
1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00
5+00
6+00
7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00
11+00
12+0014+83
13+00
14+00
TOP OF SLOPE
15' CRITICAL
GEOLOGICAL
HAZARD BUFFER
TRACT C
EAST STORM
VAULT
TOP OF SLOPE
REC #20110420000368
2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403
253.383.2422TEL 253.383.2572FAX www.ahbl.comWEB
TACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIES
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
14
STKTDW/TDSTDW
MAY 20, 2020
PRELIMINARY PLAT
SUBMITTAL
2170933.10
PHIL MITCHELL
910 TRAFFIC AVENUE
SUMNER, WA 98390
MITCHELL
DEVELOPMENT II, LLC
THE SUMMIT AT
KENDALL RIDGE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 10, TWN. 21 N., RGE. 05 E. W.M.
CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
THE SUMMIT AT KENDALL RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT
DATE: May 20, 2020 FILENAME: Q:\2017\2170933\10_CIV\CAD\_Preliminary Plat\2170933-SH-COVR.dwg
COVER SHEET
C0.0
1
FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED
SET NAIL AND WASHER
SET REBAR AND CAP
FOUND PROPERTY CORNER
MAIL BOX
SIGN AS NOTED
SOIL BORE
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
STORM CATCH BASIN
UTILITY POWER POLE
JUNCTION BOX
POWER METER
LUMINAIRE
TELEPHONE RISER
FIRE HYDRANT
IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE
WATER METER
WATER VALVE
C-CEDAR, F-FIR, P-PINE
A-ALDER, CH-CHERRY
CW-COTTONWOOD, HT-HAWTHORN
M-MAPLE, U-UNKNOWN
STORM LINE
SEWER LINE
WATER LINE
GAS LINE
ELECTRICAL LINE
COMMUNICATION LINE
OVERHEAD UTILITIES
FENCE
UNKNOWN VAULT
LEGEND
ASPHALT
CONCRETE
WETLAND BUFFER
WETLAND
N
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 50 100
1" = 50 FEET
25
N
SCALE: 1" = 1/4 MILE (1320')
VICINITY MAP
SE 304TH ST
SITE
SE 306TH ST
SE 307TH ST132ND AVE SE133RD AVE SE
HIGHWAY 18
SE 312TH WAY
SE 312TH ST 130TH AVE SE124TH AVE SESE 304T
H
S
T
SE 301ST ST
SE 299TH ST
132ND AVE SESE 301ST ST
SE 299TH PL
128TH PL SE127TH WAY SESE 315TH PL
SE 314TH PL124TH AVE SEAUBURN-ECHO
LAKE CUTOFF RD
SHEET INDEX
SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE
C0.0 COVER SHEET
C1.0 EXISTING FEATURES PLAN AND FIELD TOPOGRAPHY
C1.1 EXISTING FEATURES PLAN AND FIELD TOPOGRAPHY
C1.2 CONCEPTUAL PLAT MAP
C2.0 CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
C2.1 ROAD PROFILES AND SECTIONS
C2.2 SITE SECTIONS
C2.3 SITE SECTIONS
C2.4 SIGHT DISTANCE ANALYSIS
C2.5 TURNING TEMPLATES
C2.6 ROAD A SIDEWALK DETAILS
C3.0 CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN
C4.0 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE AND RE-VEGETATION PLAN
C4.1 WETLAND BUFFER MITIGATION
EXISTING PROPOSED
CIVIL ENGINEER
AHBL
2215 NORTH 30TH STREET, SUITE 300
TACOMA, WA 98403
PH: (253) 383-2422
FAX: (253) 383-2572
CONTACT: MATT WEBER, PE
APPLICANT/OWNER
UTILITY NOTE
TOPOGRAPHIC NOTE
THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND
UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY AND HAVE
NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED BY THE
OWNER OR ITS REPRESENTATIVE. THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT
LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES
BEFORE COMMENCING WORK AND AGREES
TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL
DAMAGES THAT INCUR DUE TO THE
CONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO LOCATE
EXACTLY AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. AHBL ASSUMES
NO LIABILITY FOR THE LOCATION OF
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.
THE EXISTING CULTURAL AND TOPOGRAPHIC DATA SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED, IN PART, UPON INFORMATION
FURNISHED BY OTHERS, SPECIFICALLY THE EXISTING ROADWAYS (133RD AVE SE AND 306TH ST SE), PARCELS WITHIN KENDALL RIDGE, THE
OFF-SITE PORTION OF WETLAND AND BUFFER AREA (KENDALL RIDGE TRACT B), AND TRACTS C, D, AND E WITHIN KENDALL RIDGE. THIS
INFORMATION HAS BEEN SKETCHED INTO THE DRAWINGS BASED ON THE KENDALL RIDGE AS-BUILT DRAWINGS. WHILE THIS INFORMATION IS
BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE, AHBL CANNOT ENSURE ACCURACY AND THUS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OF THAT INFORMATION
OR FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THESE DRAWINGS AS A RESULT.
SURVEYOR
AHBL
2215 NORTH 30TH STREET, SUITE 300
TACOMA, WA 98403
PH: (253) 383-2422
FAX: (253) 383-2572
CONTACT: DAVE FOLLANSBEE, PLS
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
SOUTH SOUND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING
P.O. BOX 39500
LAKEWOOD, WA 98496
PH: (253) 973-0515
CONTACT: TIMOTHY ROBERTS
PARCEL NUMBERS
MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT II, LLC
910 TRAFFIC AVENUE
SUMNER, WA 98390
PH: (253) 841-7000
CONTACT: PHIL MITCHELL
1021059059, 1021059095
KENDALL
RIDGE
RACEWAY MINI
STORAGE
PARCEL A:
THE EAST 208.71 FEET OF THE WEST 558.71 FEET OF THE SOUTH 208.71 FEET OF THE NORTH
538.71 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON;
PARCEL A1:
A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, AND UTILITIES OVER, UNDER AND
ACROSS THE SOUTH 30 FEET OF THE NORTH 360 FEET OF THE WEST 350 FEET OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 10
PARCEL A2:
A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES OVER, UNDER AND ACROSS
A STRIP OF LAND 60 FEET IN WIDTH, THE CENTERLINE OF WHICH IS THE NORTH LINE OF THE
SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 10; EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID EASEMENT LYING
WITHIN 132ND AVENUE SOUTHEAST.
PARCEL B:
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON;
EXCEPT THE NORTH 330 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPT THE EAST 208.71 FEET OF THE WEST
558.71 FEET OF THE SOUTH 208.71 FEET OF THE NORTH 538.71 FEET THEREOF; ALSO, THAT
PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 10, LYING WEST OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 2, ECHO LAKE
FREEWAY, AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 4975990, AND
LYING NORTHERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT A POINT 719.15 FEET
NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 10; THENCE EAST TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PRIMARY
STATE HIGHWAY NO. 2 EXCEPT THE NORTH 330 FEET THEREOF; EXCEPT THAT PORTION
CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER
9506201491;
PARCEL B1:
A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY PURPOSES OVER THE SOUTH
30 FEET OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 10; EXCEPT THE WEST 30 FEET; AND OVER THE
NORTH 30 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 10; EXCEPT THE WEST 30 FEET.
Tax Parcel Number: 102105905909 and 102105909505
Sites Address: 30440 132nd Avenue SE, Auburn, WA 98092
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
GRAVEL
RETAINING WALL
ELEVATIONS PER SHEET C2.0
DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS______DAY OF____________, 20___
DATE
THERESA DUSEK CONSULTING
128 RAINBOW LANE
PACKWOOD, WA 98361
EMAIL: theresadusek@hotmail.com
CONTACT: THERESA DUSEK
NAD 1983
WASHINGTON STATE PLANE NORTH PROJECTION, BASED ON GPS
OBSERVATIONS USING WSRN AND GEOID 2012A. UNITS OF MEASUREMENT
ARE US SURVEY FEET. COA SURVEY MONUMENTS SHOWN ON THIS SHEET
COA MON 515-007 COA MON 515-008
3" SURFACE BRASS 3" SURFACE BRASS
INT-X OF 133RD AVE SE INT-X OF 133RD AVE SE
& SE 306TH ST & SE 307TH ST.
COA PUBLISHED VALUES:
N:122267.17 N:122599.19
E:1310438.24 E:1310445.62
WSRN VALUES:
N:122267.63 N:122599.61
E:1310438.54 E:1310445.91
A LINE BETWEEN THE MONUMENTS HOLDING WSRN VALUES BEARS
N01°16'14"E
BASIS OF BEARING
VERTICAL DATUM
WETLAND
CONSULTANT
NAVD 1988
PROJECT BENCHMARK: COA 515-025
CHISELED X ON WEST BOLT FOR THE SECOND STREET LIGHT ON THE
EAST SIDE OF 132ND AVENUE SE NORTH OF HOME AT ADDRESS
30628.
COA PUBLISHED ELEV=506.46'
PROJECT BENCHMARK: COA 515-026
CHISELED X ON WEST BOLT FOR THE STREET LIGHT ON THE EAST
SIDE OF 132ND AVENUE SE IN FRONT OF HOME AT ADDRESS 30522.
PUBLISHED ELEV=501.46'
SEE SITE BENCHMARKS THIS PAGE.
06/03/2020
EXHIBIT 7
Page 245 of 380
HIGHWAY 18133RD AVE SEPARCEL B
PARCEL A
PARCEL A1
PARCELS A2 & B1
EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING STRUCTURES TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING HOUSE AND ALL
ASSOCIATED UTILITIES TO
BE REMOVED
EXISTING CONCRETE
PAD TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING FENCE
TO BE REMOVED
KENDALL RIDGE
REC #20110420000368
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
UTILITY NOTES
RELIANCE NOTE
EQUIPMENT USED
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
N
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 30 60 FEET
1" = 30 FEET
15SEE SHEET C1.1BASIS OF BEARING
VERTICAL DATUM
2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403
253.383.2422TEL 253.383.2572FAX www.ahbl.comWEB
TACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIES
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
14
STKTDW/TDSTDW
MAY 3, 2018
PRELIMINARY PLAT
SUBMITTAL
2170933.10
PHIL MITCHELL
910 TRAFFIC AVENUE
SUMNER, WA 98390
MITCHELL
DEVELOPMENT II, LLC
THE SUMMIT AT
KENDALL RIDGE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 10, TWN. 21 N., RGE. 05 E. W.M.
CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
THE SUMMIT AT KENDALL RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT
EXISTING FEATURES
PLAN AND FIELD
TOPOGRAPHY
C1.0
2
EXISTING LEGEND
LIGHT SHADED AREA INDICATES
SLOPES OF 25% OR GREATER
DARK SHADED AREA INDICATES
SLOPES OF 40% OR GREATER
11/04/2019
06/03/2020
Page 246 of 380
132ND AVE SE133RD AVE SEPARCELS A2 & B2
N
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 30 60 FEET
1" = 30 FEET
15
SEE SHEET C1.0EXISTING FEATURES
PLAN AND FIELD
TOPOGRAPHY
C1.1
3
2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403
253.383.2422TEL 253.383.2572FAX www.ahbl.comWEB
TACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIES
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
14
STKTDW/TDSTDW
MAY 3, 2018
PRELIMINARY PLAT
SUBMITTAL
2170933.10
PHIL MITCHELL
910 TRAFFIC AVENUE
SUMNER, WA 98390
MITCHELL
DEVELOPMENT II, LLC
THE SUMMIT AT
KENDALL RIDGE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 10, TWN. 21 N., RGE. 05 E. W.M.
CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
THE SUMMIT AT KENDALL RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT
EXISTING LEGEND
11/04/201906/03/2020
Page 247 of 380
1
5,162 SF
2
4,526 SF
3
4,370 SF
4
4,464 SF
5
4,661 SF
6
4,745 SF
7
4,438 SF
8
4,694 SF
10
4,502 SF 11
4,783 SF
12
4,562 SF
13
4,562 SF 14
4,633 SF
15
5,511 SF
16
5,697 SF
9
4,572 SF
17
4,983 SF
Δ
HIGHWAY 18ROAD A
(LOCAL RESIDENTIAL)133RD AVE SE(LOCAL RESIDENTIAL)ROAD B(LOCAL RESIDENTIAL)TRACT D 3,937 SFSHARED ACCESS/ UTILITY EASEMENTTRACT E 3,216 SFSHARED ACCESS/ UTILITY EASEMENTTRACT A
WETLAND
27,613 SF
35.5' PUBLIC
ROW
35.5' PUBLIC
ROW
50' PUBLIC ROW
R25'
45' PUBLIC
ROW
45' PUBLIC
ROW
78.15'
98.71'
80.75'
93.63'80.75'55.00'50.00'50.00'46.50'50.00'45.48'119.41'
129.22'26.39'50.00'50.00'56.50'56.50'106.01'20.15'58.33'74.82'
R=25.00'
L=5.66'
R=45.00'
L=67.63'
R=45.00'
L=58.56'
R=45.00'
L=38.41'
R=25.00'
L=28.20'
R=45.00'
L=22.34'
R=45.00'
L=47.06'
R=45.00'
L=57.65'
26.5'
26.5'50.19'45.39'41.29'10.42'34.93'25.65'54.67'
55.53'56.50'56.50'117.86'R=9.00'
L=13.35'
R=9.00'
L=14.92'
95.0°
5' SIDE YARD
SETBACK (TYP.)
20' REAR YARD
SETBACK (TYP.)
50'
EXISTING
ROW
TRACT B
STORM
4,005 SF
TRACT F
CRITICAL GEOLOGICAL
HAZARD AREA
36,534 SF
PARCEL #1021059079
PARCEL #3814901080
KENDALL RIDGE TRACT B
PARCEL #3814901090
KENDALL RIDGE TRACT C
PARCEL #3814901110
KENDALL RIDGE TRACT E
PARCEL #3814901100
KENDALL RIDGE TRACT D
PARCEL #3814900850
PARCEL #3814900840
PARCEL #3814900830
PARCEL #3814900820
PARCEL #3814900810
PARCEL #3814900800
PARCEL #3814900790
PARCEL #3814900780
PARCEL #3814901120
KENDALL RIDGE TRACT K
53.50'
50.00'
95.30'
94.87'30.88'32.80'45.44'71.12'
268.76'
181.90'
R=115.50'
L=10.30'
R=89.00'
L=1.61'48.38'15.61'39.35'13.20'57.75'5.61
'62.76
'23.51'57.91'3.24'40.43'R=84.50'
L=25.63'R=111.00'
L=26.60'
R=111.00'
L=12.24'
R=113.25'
L=9.58'
R=113.25'
L=29.98'
R=86.75'
L=15.15'
50'
R=45.53'
L=27.88'
R=45.00'
L=27.30'
24.36'
R=25.00'
L=22.54'10.42'R=314.00'
L=10.88'
R=352.00'
L=12.27'
79.83'94.55'
98.01'
89.26'
80.75'
19'
16.5'
19'
11'
100.72'
118.59'
92.50'
16+75
15+00
16+004+00 5+00 6+00
7+00
8+00 9+00
10+00
11+00
12+00
14+83
13+00
14+00ROAD A STA: 7+94.67 =
ROAD B STA: 11+00.00
EXISTING EASEMENT
REC #8106229003
RETAINING WALL, REFER TO SHEET C2.0
Δ=90°13'58"
R=31.00'
L=48.82'
S86° 29' 51"E
110.20'
S88° 29' 38"E
52.04'S88° 29' 38"E
181.95'
S88° 29' 52"E
208.58'
Δ=2°00'01"
R=333.00'
L=11.63'
Δ=1°59'47"
R=333.00'
L=11.60'Δ=30°41'00"
R=100.00'
L=53.55'S3° 29' 38"E69.67'Δ=36°52'12"
R=100.00'
L=64.35'S1° 30' 22"W126.39'L=48.49'R=100.00'Δ=27°46'55"S1° 32' 19"W
60.58'
S21° 33' 15"W
10.42'
Δ=43°57'03"
R=100.00'
L=76.71'
Δ=20°00'56"
R=102.25'
L=35.72'
PI: 7+94.67
PI: 4+00.62 PC: 6+09.20PC: 7+31.02
PC: 9+76.62PT: 6+20.83PT: 7+42.62
PT: 10+30.17PC: 11+69.67
EP: 14+83.43
PC: 14+37.29
PT: 13+76.71
PT: 14+73.01
EP: 16+74.88
PT: 15+48.49
N1° 16' 10"E
44.13'
CENTER OF
CUL-DE-SAC:
12+34.02
CENTER OF
CUL-DE-SAC:
10+30.17
60.57'
26.50'
DEV
18-0017, #4
REC #20110420000368 TRACT C
STORM
10,800 SF
15' STEEP SLOPE
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
15' CRITICAL
GEOLOGICAL
HAZARD BUFFER
TOP OF SLOPE
R=86.75'
L=15.16'
20.36'
10' UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP.)13.39'19.07'54.08'7.74'21.57'DEV
18-0017, #2
51.03'
14'
90.75'
TOP OF SLOPE
15' CRITICAL
GEOLOGICAL
HAZARD BUFFER
28.06'24.46'39.62'
32.45'20.9
6'36.01'42.22'
13.07'
7.54'
16.10'11.12'15' DRAINAGE
ACCESS EASEMENT
5' PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT
10.94'15.5
0
'
11.0
0
'
26.5
0
'
20'
60'
FUTURE
50' ROW
12' RETAINING WALL
ACCESS EASEMENT
FUTURE
50' ROW
EMERGENCY VEHICLE
ACCESS AND PRIVATE DRIVE132ND AVE SE(MINOR ARTERIAL)0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00S88° 29' 52"E
400.62'
2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403
253.383.2422TEL 253.383.2572FAX www.ahbl.comWEB
TACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIES
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
14
STKTDW/TDSTDW
MAY 20, 2020
PRELIMINARY PLAT
SUBMITTAL
2170933.10
PHIL MITCHELL
910 TRAFFIC AVENUE
SUMNER, WA 98390
MITCHELL
DEVELOPMENT II, LLC
THE SUMMIT AT
KENDALL RIDGE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 10, TWN. 21 N., RGE. 05 E. W.M.
CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
THE SUMMIT AT KENDALL RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT
DATE: May 20, 2020 FILENAME: Q:\2017\2170933\10_CIV\CAD\_Preliminary Plat\2170933-SH-PLAT.dwg
CONCEPTUAL
PLAT MAP
C1.2
4
PARCEL NUMBERS:1021059095, 1021059059
SITE ADDRESS:30440 132ND AVE SE
EXISTING ZONING:R5 RESIDENTIAL
PROPOSED ZONING:R5 RESIDENTIAL
PROPOSED USE:SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY SIZE (GROSS AREA): 4.500 AC
ANTICIPATED ROW:0.668 AC
NET DEVELOPABLE AREA:1.856 AC
MINIMUM ALLOWED DENSITY:18 UNITS (4 DU PER GROSS AC)
MAXIMUM ALLOWED DENSITY:23 UNITS (5 DU PER GROSS AC)
PROPOSED DENSITY:17 UNITS (3.8 DU PER GROSS AC)
PROPOSED MINIMUM LOT AREA: 4,370 SF
PROPOSED MINIMUM LOT WIDTH: 40 FT
PROPOSED AVERAGE LOT AREA: 4,757 SF
PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE:40%
MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE:40%
MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS AREA:65%
LOT SETBACKS:
FRONT YARD:20 FT GARAGE
10 FT RESIDENCE
INTERIOR SIDE YARD:5 FT
STREET SIDE YARD:10 FT
REAR YARD:20 FT
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT:35 FT
RESIDENTIAL TABLE
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 30 60
1" = 30 FEET
15
N
KENDALL
RIDGE
RACEWAY MINI
STORAGE
MATCHLINEMATCHLINE55'
75'
50'
40'
10' FRONT YARD
SETBACK (TYP.)
PARCEL #1021059058
NAME OF SUBDIVISION: THE SUMMIT AT KENDALL RIDGE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
APPLICANT/OWNER: MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT II, LLC
910 TRAFFIC AVENUE
SUMNER, WA 98390
PH: (253) 841-7000
CONTACT: PHIL MITCHELL
SEWER PROVIDER: CITY OF AUBURN
WATER PROVIDER: CITY OF AUBURN
SCHOOL DISTRICT: AUBURN #408
FIRE DISTRICT:VALLEY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY
TELEPHONE SERVICE: CENTURYLINK
POWER SOURCE:PUGET SOUND ENERGY
PROJECT DATA
LOT AREAS
LOT #LOT AREA (SF) LOT AREA (AC) LOT WIDTH (FT)
1 5,162 0.119 55.0
2 4,526 0.104 50.1
3 4,370 0.100 50.0
4 4,464 0.102 40.0
5 4,661 0.107 45.5
6 4,745 0.109 50.0
7 4,438 0.102 46.5
8 4,694 0.108 50.0
9 4,572 0.105 50.0
10 4,502 0.103 55.0
11 4,783 0.110 55.0
12 4,562 0.105 56.5
13 4,562 0.105 56.5
14 4,633 0.106 50.0
15 5,511 0.127 50.0
16 5,697 0.131 50.0
17 4,983 0.114 53.5
AVERAGE 4,757 0.109 50.8
TOTAL 80,865 1.856
OPEN SPACE/CRITICAL AREA TRACTS
TRACT LABEL TRACT USE
TRACT AREA (SF) TRACT AREA (AC)FUTURE OWNERSHIP/MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY
TRACT A WETLAND
27,613 0.634 THE SUMMIT AT KENDALL RIDGE HOA
TRACT F CRITICAL GEOLOGICAL HAZARD AREA
36,534 0.839 THE SUMMIT AT KENDALL RIDGE HOA
ACCESS/STORM TRACTS
TRACT LABEL TRACT USE
TRACT AREA (SF) TRACT AREA (AC)FUTURE OWNERSHIP/MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY
TRACT B WEST STORM POND
4,005 0.092 THE SUMMIT AT KENDALL RIDGE HOA
TRACT C EAST STORM VAULT
10,800 0.248 CITY OF AUBURN
TRACT D WEST SHARED ACCESS
3,625 0.083 THE SUMMIT AT KENDALL RIDGE HOA
TRACT E EAST SHARED ACCESS
3,468 0.080 THE SUMMIT AT KENDALL RIDGE HOA
DEV
18-0017, #2
DEV
18-0017, #4
DEVIATION FROM SECTION 10.02.10.3 OF THE
2019 COA ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARDS
NOT YET APPROVED
DEVIATION LETTER SENT APRIL 15, 2019
DEVIATION IS LOCATED AT THE ROAD A CUL-DE-SAC
DEVIATION FROM TABLE 10-1 OF THE
2019 COA ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARDS
NOT YET APPROVED
DEVIATION LETTER SENT APRIL 15, 2019
DEVIATION IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
133RD AVE SE AND ROAD A
06/03/2020
Page 248 of 380
1
5,162 SF
2
4,526 SF
3
4,370 SF
4
4,464 SF
5
4,661 SF
6
4,745 SF
7
4,438 SF
8
4,694 SF
10
4,502 SF 11
4,783 SF
12
4,562 SF
13
4,562 SF 14
4,633 SF
15
5,511 SF
16
5,697 SF
9
4,572 SF
17
4,983 SF
HIGHWAY 18CB #3
CB TYPE 1
RIM: 478.80
IE: 474.51 12" (N)
CB #2
48" TYPE 2 CB
RIM: 477.26
IE: 471.01 12" (W)
IE: 471.01 12" (SE)
IE: 471.01 12" (E)
CB #5
CB TYPE 1
RIM: 477.03
IE: 472.11 12" (E)
IE: 472.11 12" (NW)
IE: 472.11 12" (S)
CB #4
CB TYPE 1
RIM: 477.03
IE: 472.24 12" (W)
CB #1
CB TYPE 1
RIM: 474.51
IE: 471.58 12" (E)
CB #6
CB TYPE 1L
RIM: 474.52
IE: 470.00 12" (W)
IE: 470.00 12" (SE)
CB #7
CB TYPE 1L
RIM: 471.73
IE: 469.50 12" (NW)
IE: 469.50 12" (S)
CB #8
CB TYPE 1
RIM: 471.40
IE: 468.83 12" (N)
IE: 468.83 12" (W)
114 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.50%
26 LF 12"
CPEP
@ 0.50%
52 LF 12" CPEP @ 2.11%
203 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.50%
57 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.87%
134 LF 12"
CPEP @ 0.50%
72 LF 12" C
P
E
P
@
0
.
7
6
%
127 LF 12" CPEP @ 1.89%
WEST DETENTION POND
VOLUME = 0.09 AC*FT
BOTTOM AREA = 888 SF
BOTTOM ELEV = 475.75
RISER ELEV = 478.25
2' WIDE BERM
ELEV = 478.75
86 LF 2'x2' GRAVEL
DISPERSION TRENCH
W/ 86 LF 8" PERF PVC
IE: 474.42
CONNECT RISER PIPE TO
GRAVEL DISPERSION TRENCH
POND INLET
W/ RIP RAP
IE: 477.25
POND INLET
W/ RIP RAP
IE: 477.25
47
5
475
4754804724734744764764764774774774
7
8
478478479481482483
460462
4804784794774784
7
8
481
480477478479473474472472473475476477478478478479ROOF DRAIN
PIPE (TYP.)
ROOF DRAIN
PIPE (TYP.)
FF: 478.40
FF: 479.50
FF: 480.10
FF: 480.77 FF: 481.40
FF: 480.84
FF: 480.57
FF: 479.28
FF: 478.85
FF: 478.25 FF: 473.30
FF: 472.44
FF: 472.05
FF: 472.63
FF: 473.03
FF: 473.23
FF: 473.88
FF: 461.88
FF: 461.23
FF: 461.03
FF: 460.63
BW: 478.77 BW: 478.77
BW: 479.40
BW: 479.40
TW: 476.50
TW: 478.00
TW: 478.00
TW: 478.50
TW: 478.50
TW: 478.50
TW: 475.50
BW: 476.50
BW: 473.51
BW: 472.00
BW: 471.50
BW: 471.50
BW: 471.50
BW: 475.50
OVERLAND PIPE
APPROX. 328 LF 18" CPEP
DISCHARGE TO 54" ENERGY
DISSIPATOR WITHIN DITCH
ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 18
CONTROL STRUCTURE #1
18" DIAMETER RISER
W/ 3
4" ORIFICE
AND 13"x1
8" NOTCH
CONTROL STRUCTURE
W/ 3 ORIFICES
18" DIAMETER RISER ELEVATION: 469.50
IE: 460.50 12" (N,W)
EG: 482.61
EG: 482.73
EG: 482.94
EV ACCESS GATE 20'
CLEAR WIDTH SECURED
WITH KNOX PADLOCK
MODEL #3770 OR #3772
133RD AVE SE(LOCAL RESIDENTIAL)GRADING
DAYLIGHT
(TYP.)
GRADING
DAYLIGHT
(TYP.)
GRADING
DAYLIGHT
(TYP.)
GRADING
DAYLIGHT
(TYP.)
VAULT INLET #1
IE: 468.25 12" (N)
EMERGENCY OVERFLOW STRUCTURE
48" TYPE 2 CB
RIM: 470.50
IE: 458.17 12" (S)
IE: 458.67 6" (N)
IE: 457.67 18" (E)
203 LF 6" PERF
FRENCH DRAIN
FRENCH DRAIN
CLEANOUT
14
4,633 SF
15
5,511 SF
16
5,697 SF
17
4,983 SF
46547016+75
15+00
16+004+00
5+00
6+00
7+00
8+00 9+00
10+00
11+00
12+0014+83
13+00
14+00ROAD A STA: 7+94.67 =
ROAD B STA: 11+00.00
STOP
SIGN
R20'
R20'
END DEPRESSED CURB
BEGIN
DEPRESSED
CURB
2:1 MAX
SLOPE2:1 MAX.
SLOPE
3:1 MAX INTERIOR
SIDE SLOPES
R30'
BEGIN
DEPRESSED
CURB END DEPRESSED
CURB
ROAD A
ROAD BVAULT ACCESS GATE WITH REMOVABLE BOLLARDS.
15' MIN. CLEAR WIDTH
A
B CDPROPOSED STREET
LIGHT (TYP.)
FRENCH DRAIN
CLEANOUT
FRENCH DRAIN CLEANOUT
FRENCH DRAIN
CLEANOUT
15' CRITICAL GEOLOGICAL
HAZARD BUFFER
BEGIN
DEPRESSED
CURB
VAULT INLET #2
IE: 467.04 12" (S)
10'
40'
91'10'
5 LF 6" PVC
STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT
TOP OF SLOPE
67 LF 6" PVC
TOP OF SLOPE
MODULAR WETLAND
MWS-L-4-6.33-8'-0"-V-UG
RIM: 470.50
IE: 460.00 12" (S)
IE: 458.67 12" (N)
TREATMENT FLOW RATE = 0.07 CFS
PEAK FLOW RATE = 1.50 CFS
R37.5'
2' BETWEEN PROPERTY
LINE AND BACK OF
PROPOSED CURB
BEGIN TAPER
STA:9+76.62, 11.00'LT
R37.5'460461 462480479471
480479481480 479476 477 478
480CB #9
CB TYPE 1
RIM: 471.06
IE: 468.28 12" (E)
IE: 468.28 12" (S)
CB #10
CB TYPE 1
RIM: 470.20
IE: 467.23 12" (N)
19 LF 12" CPEP @ 1.00%
15' CRITICAL
GEOLOGICAL
HAZARD BUFFER
15' DRAINAGE
ACCESS EASEMENT
STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT
10 LF 6" PVC
5' PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT
FUTURE
50' ROW
FUTURE
SIDEWALK
FUTURE ROAD
WIDENING
FUTURE
LANDSCAPE STRIP
END
DEPRESSED
CURB
GRAVEL
ACCESS
ROAD 1.43%1.35%INTERCEPTOR DITCH
BEGIN
DEPRESSED
CURB
SIDEWALK WITH
RETAINING WALL WHERE
ADJACENT TO WETLAND
3" TALL PARABOLIC
SPEED HUMP
19'
12'
"SPEED HUMP" SIGN
PER MUTCD W17-1
10'485490495484486487488489491492493494496497EG: 496.79
EG: 497.47
REPLACE EXISTING DRIVEWAY WITH
LIGHT COMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIAL
DRIVEWAYS AS NECESSARY
20' GRAVEL
ROAD
GRADING
DAYLIGHT
(TYP.)
0+00 1+00
2+00
3+00
EV ACCESS ROAD SHALL BE
MAINTAINED BY THE SUMMIT
AT KENDALL RIDGE HOA HIGHWAY 18APPROX. LOCATION OF
EXISTING DITCH ALONG
WEST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 18
54" DIAMETER
ENERGY DISSIPATOR
OVERLAND PIPE
APPROX. 301 LF 18" CPEP
DISCHARGE TO 54" ENERGY
DISSIPATOR WITHIN DITCH
ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 18
2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403
253.383.2422TEL 253.383.2572FAX www.ahbl.comWEB
TACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIES
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
14
STKTDW/TDSTDW
MAY 20, 2020
PRELIMINARY PLAT
SUBMITTAL
2170933.10
PHIL MITCHELL
910 TRAFFIC AVENUE
SUMNER, WA 98390
MITCHELL
DEVELOPMENT II, LLC
THE SUMMIT AT
KENDALL RIDGE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 10, TWN. 21 N., RGE. 05 E. W.M.
CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
THE SUMMIT AT KENDALL RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT
DATE: May 20, 2020 FILENAME: Q:\2017\2170933\10_CIV\CAD\_Preliminary Plat\2170933-SH-GRAD-STRM.dwg
CONCEPTUAL
GRADING AND
DRAINAGE PLAN
C2.0
5
2
C2.1
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 30 60
1" = 30 FEET
15
N
KENDALL
RIDGE
RACEWAY MINI
STORAGE
MATCHLINE AMATCHLINE AMATCHLINE BMATCHLINE BLEGEND
TYPE 1 CATCH BASIN
(EXCEPT WHERE NOTED
AS TYPE 1 L)
TYPE 2 CATCH BASIN
DETENTION POND
CONTROL STRUCTURE
RIP RAP PROTECTION
EARTHWORK
CUT: 6,000 CY
FILL: 4,350 CY
NET: 1,650 CY EXPORT
NOTE:
THE ABOVE QUANTITIES ARE ESTIMATES ONLY
INTENDED FOR THE PERMITTING PROCESS. DO
NOT USE FOR BID PURPOSES. THE QUANTITIES
DO NOT HAVE STRIPPING, COMPACTION, OR CUT
OR FILL ADJUSTMENT FACTORS APPLIED TO
THEM.
1
C2.1
3
C2.1
4
C2.1
5
C2.1
ON-STREET PARKING NOTE
ALL PROPOSED ROADS, CUL-DE-SACS, AND SHARED ACCESS
ROADS SHALL BE POSTED NO PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH
ACC AND CITY OF AUBURN ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARDS.
TWO FORMS OF FIRE LANE IDENTIFICATION SHALL BE PROVIDED;
ONE TO MARK THE LANE AND ANOTHER TO IDENTIFY IT.132ND AVE SE(MINOR ARTERIAL)LANDSCAPE NOTE
ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE RE-VEGETATED.
EAST DETENTION VAULT
VOLUME: 0.752 AC FT
RIM: 470.50
BOTTOM ELEVATION: 460.00
SUMP ELEVATION: 456.50
INTERCEPTOR DITCH. DIRECT RUNOFF FROM TRACT C TOWARDS CB #10.
ROOF DRAIN NOTE
EACH LOT SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A
PERFORATED STUB OUT CONNECTION
PER FIGURE III-3.1.8 IN THE SWMMWW .
THE TRENCHES SHALL BE LOCATED IN
THE FRONT YARDS OF EACH LOT.
1
C2.6
06/03/2020
Page 249 of 380
460
465
470
475
480
485
490
495
500
460
465
470
475
480
485
490
495
500
0+00 0+50497.05496.801+00496.41495.741+50494.78493.552+00492.04490.252+50488.35486.703+00485.34484.273+50483.48482.944+00482.44482.194+50481.77481.045+00479.98478.595+50477.20476.126+00475.36474.906+50474.75474.927+00475.39476.187+50477.10477.748+00478.06478.058+50477.71477.109+00476.47475.839+50475.20474.5610+00473.92473.2910+50472.79472.613.77%
2.54%
1.00%
1.00%
6.
1
8
%
7.
7
3
%
2.00%
120.00' VC
PVI STA: 8+00.00
PVI ELEV: 479.01
HIGH PT STA: 8+11.67
HIGH PT ELEV: 478.10
K: 19.00
BVCS: 7+40.00BVCE: 476.75EVCS: 8+60.00EVCE: 477.48150.00' VC
PVI STA: 1+50.00
PVI ELEV: 496.05
HIGH PT STA: 0+75
HIGH PT ELEV: 496.80
K: 22.29
BVCS: 0+75.00BVCE: 496.80EVCS: 2+25.00EVCE: 490.25100.00' VC
PVI STA: 4+75.00
PVI ELEV: 481.69
HIGH PT STA: 4+25
HIGH PT ELEV: 482.19
K: 19.29
BVCS: 4+25.00BVCE: 482.19EVCS: 5+25.00EVCE: 478.59200.00' VC
PVI STA: 6+25.00
PVI ELEV: 472.41
LOW PT STA: 6+49.23
LOW PT ELEV: 474.75
K: 20.09
BVCS: 5+25.00BVCE: 478.59EVCS: 7+25.00EVCE: 476.18125.00' VC
PVI STA: 3+00.00
PVI ELEV: 484.45
LOW PT STA: 3+62.50
LOW PT ELEV: 483.19
K: 21.82
BVCS: 2+37.50BVCE: 489.28EVCS: 3+62.50EVCE: 483.19GRADE BREAK STA: 0+46.00ELEV: 497.089GRADE BREAK STA: 10+34.35
ELEV: 473.050GRADE BREAK STA: 4+00.62ELEV: 482.430CENTER OF CUL-DE-SAC
FINISHED GRADE AT
ROADWAY CENTERLINE
EXISTING GRADE AT
ROADWAY CENTERLINE
EXISTING ELEVATION AT
ROADWAY CENTERLINE
FINISHED ELEVATION AT
ROADWAY CENTERLINE
INTERSECTION WITH
133RD AVE SE
CONNECTION TO
EXISTING DRIVEWAY
PROPERTY LINE
INTERSECTION
WITH ROAD B
STA: 7+94.67
SSMH #3
RIM: 478.03
STA: 8+07.63, 3.00 RT
IE: 461.67 8" (E)
IE: 461.61 8" (S)
IE: 461.67 8" (N)
206 LF 8" SAN @ 1.00%
SSMH #2
RIM: 473.63
STA: 10+13.13, 3.85 LT
IE: 463.79 8" (S)
IE: 463.73 8" (W)
156 LF 8" SAN @ 1.00%
231 LF 8" DI CL52 WATER MAIN
18 LF 8" DI CL52
WATER MAIN
55 LF 8" DI CL52
WATER MAIN
105 LF 8" DI CL52
WATER MAIN
228 LF 8" DI CL52 WATER MAIN
CB #1, CB TYPE 1
STA 6+49.23, 9.92R
RIM: 474.51
IE: 471.58 12" (E)
STA: 7+63.25, 9.08 R
IE: 471.01 12" (W)
IE: 471.01 12" (SE)
IE: 471.01 12" (E)
RIM: 477.26
CB #2, 48" TYPE 2 CB
STA: 9+65.78, 9.92 R
IE: 470.00 12" (W)
IE: 470.00 12" (SE)
RIM: 474.52
CB #6
CB TYPE 1L
STA: 10+31.71, 36.39 R
IE: 469.50 12" (NW)
IE: 469.50 12" (S)
RIM: 471.73
CB #7, CB TYPE 1L
57 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.87%
203 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.50%
114 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.50%
134 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.50%
-2.0%PROPOSED GRADE ALONG SOUTH EDGE OF TRACT K (19' RT)
EXISTING GRADE ALONG SOUTH EDGE OF TRACT K (19' RT)
455
460
465
470
475
480
485
455
460
465
470
475
480
485
11+00478.02477.5811+50477.33477.4112+00477.85478.4812+50479.07480.082.00%2.54%GRADE BREAK STA: 11+00.00ELEV: 478.023GRADE BREAK STA: 12+34.02ELEV: 478.70590.00' VC
PVI STA: 11+60.00
PVI ELEV: 476.82
LOW PT STA: 11+54.62
LOW PT ELEV: 477.33
K: 19.81
BVCS: 11+15.00BVCE: 477.72EVCS: 12+05.00EVCE: 477.97CENTER OF CUL-DE-SAC
EXISTING ELEVATION AT
ROADWAY CENTERLINE
FINISHED ELEVATION AT
ROADWAY CENTERLINE
FINISHED GRADE AT
ROADWAY CENTERLINE
EXISTING GRADE
AT ROADWAY
CENTERLINE
275 LF 8" SA
N
@
1
.
0
0
%
SSMH #3
RIM: 478.03
STA: 11+04.12, 12.65 LT
IE: 461.67 8" (E)
IE: 461.61 8" (S)
IE: 461.67 8" (N)
113 LF 8" DI CL52
WATER MAIN
38 LF 8" DI CL52
WATER MAIN
31 LF 8" DI CL52
WATER MAIN
STA: 11+06.31, 32.09 R
IE: 471.01 12" (W)
IE: 471.01 12" (SE)
IE: 471.01 12" (E)
RIM: 477.26
CB #2, 48" TYPE 2 CB
STA: 11+54.62, 12.92 L
IE: 472.24 12" (W)
RIM: 477.03
CB #4, CB TYPE 1
52 LF 12" CPEP @ 2.11%
127 LF 12"
CPEP @ 1.89%
STA: 12+67.93, 41.20 L
IE: 474.51 12" (N)
RIM: 478.80
CB #3, CB TYPE 1
115 LF 8"
DI CL52
WATER MAIN
2.29%
2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403
253.383.2422TEL 253.383.2572FAX www.ahbl.comWEB
TACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIES
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
14
STKTDW/TDSTDW
MAY 20, 2020
PRELIMINARY PLAT
SUBMITTAL
2170933.10
PHIL MITCHELL
910 TRAFFIC AVENUE
SUMNER, WA 98390
MITCHELL
DEVELOPMENT II, LLC
THE SUMMIT AT
KENDALL RIDGE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 10, TWN. 21 N., RGE. 05 E. W.M.
CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
THE SUMMIT AT KENDALL RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT
DATE: May 20, 2020 FILENAME: Q:\2017\2170933\10_CIV\CAD\_Preliminary Plat\2170933-SH-GRAD-STRM.dwg
ROAD PROFILES
AND SECTIONS
C2.1
6
2 SCALE: 1" = 5 FEET
ROAD A SECTION ON-SITE
ROAD A PROFILE
SCALE: H: 1" = 50 FEET, V: 1" = 5 FEET
ROAD B PROFILE
SCALE: H: 1" = 50 FEET, V: 1" = 5 FEET
℄
R/W
28' PAVED
WIDTH
50' PUBLIC ROW
0.5' CURB
5' SIDEWALK
5.5'
LANDSCAPE
STRIP
0.5' CURB
5' SIDEWALK
5.5'
LANDSCAPE
STRIP
R/W
20' PAVED WIDTH
0.5' CURB
5' SIDEWALK
26.5' SHARED ACCESS/UTILITY EASEMENT
R/W R/W
2% 2%
2%
20' PAVED WIDTH
0.5' CURB
5' SIDEWALK
26.5' SHARED ACCESS/UTILITY EASEMENT
R/W
2%
R/W
1 SCALE: 1" = 5 FEET
ROAD A SECTION OFF-SITE
3 SCALE: 1" = 5 FEET
ROAD B SECTION 4 SCALE: 1" = 5 FEET
WEST SHARED ACCESS
AND UTILITY EASEMENT 5 SCALE: 1" = 5 FEET
EAST SHARED ACCESS
AND UTILITY EASEMENT
22' PAVED WIDTH
0.5' CURB
7.5'
SIDEWALK
PUBLIC ROW
VARIES 31.26' - 35.5'
⅊R/W
EXISTING
GRADE
2:1 MAX
DAYLIGHT TO
EXISTING GRADE
LANDSCAPE STRIP
VARIES 0.76' - 5'
2%
0.5' TEMPORARY
BARRIER CURB
SIDEWALK WITH
RETAINING WALL WHERE
ADJACENT TO WETLAND
22' PAVED WIDTH
0.5' CURB
7.5'
SIDEWALK
30' ACCESS AND UTILITIES EASEMENT
EXISTING
GRADE
2:1 MAX
DAYLIGHT TO
EXISTING GRADE
30' ACCESS AND UTILITIES EASEMENT
SIDEWALK WITH
RETAINING WALL
NOT TO EXCEED
30" DROP
EXISTING GRADE
12' PRIVATE
GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
60'
9'
2%
2%
8.5' LANDSCAPE
STRIP
6' FENCE ALONG
PROPERTY LINE
0.5' TEMPORARY
BARRIER CURB
11'
19'
ROADWAY CENTERLINE
VARIES
12.26' - 16.5'19'
NOT TO EXCEED 30" DROP
WHERE ADJACENT TO WETLAND
EXISTING GRADE
11'
7.25'±
PROPOSED 8"
WATER MAIN
3.5' MIN. COVER
STREETLIGHT
STREETLIGHTSTREETLIGHT
STREETLIGHT
11'
11'
PROPOSED 8"
WATER MAIN
3.5' MIN. COVER
ROADWAY CENTERLINE
MIN. 10' HORIZONTAL SEPARATION
PROPOSED 8" SEWER MAIN
PROPOSED 12"
STORM DRAINAGE
PIPE
1' MIN. COVER
PROPOSED 8"
WATER MAIN
3.5' MIN. COVER
MIN. 10' HORIZONTAL SEPARATION
PROPOSED 8" SEWER MAIN
PROPOSED 8"
WATER MAIN
3.5' MIN. COVER
MIN. 10' HORIZONTAL SEPARATION
PROPOSED 8" SEWER MAIN
PROPOSED 12"
STORM DRAINAGE PIPE
1' MIN. COVER
PROPOSED 8"
WATER MAIN
3.5' MIN. COVER
MIN. 10' HORIZONTAL SEPARATION
PROPOSED 8" SEWER MAINPROPOSED 12"
STORM DRAINAGE PIPE
1' MIN. COVER
MIN. 2' FLAT MIN. 2' FLAT
MIN. 2' FLAT MIN. 2' FLAT MIN. 2' FLATMIN. 2' FLAT
MIN. 2' FLAT WHERE
ADJACENT TO LOTS
DEV
18-0017, #3
DEV
18-0017, #3
THE LANDSCAPED AREA THAT IS
LESS THAN 2' WIDE SHALL CONSIST
OF A WEED BARRIER AND CRUSHED
SURFACING TOP COURSE
CLEAR ZONE VARIES
1.26' - 5.5'
ROADWAY CENTERLINE ROADWAY CENTERLINE
15.5'15.5'11'11'
1' WEDGE CURB 1' WEDGE CURB
10'10'10'10'
DEVIATION FROM TABLE 10-1 OF THE
2019 COA ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARDS
NOT YET APPROVED
DEVIATION LETTER SENT APRIL 15, 2019
DEVIATION IS LOCATED ALONG ROAD A
1
C2.6
1
C2.6
06/03/2020
Page 250 of 380
445
450
455
460
465
470
475
480
485
445
450
455
460
465
470
475
480
485
0+50 1+00 1+50476.67477.422+00478.25478.102+50477.73478.543+00478.85478.853+50478.26472.424+00472.44472.354+50471.89472.825+00472.03461.045+50460.816+00 6+50
BREAK IN EG DUE TO EXISTING HOUSE
6.3'
WETLAND
WEST DETENTION POND
ROAD B CUL-DE-SAC
LOT 9
LOT 12 LOT 15
12' DAYLIGHT
BASEMENT
MAX WATER SURFACE = 478.25
FRENCH DRAIN
WEST PROPERTY LINE EAST PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING ELEVATION
AT SECTION LINE
FINISHED ELEVATION
AT SECTION LINE
FINISHED GRADE
AT SECTION LINE
EXISTING GRADE
AT SECTION LINE
435
440
445
450
455
460
465
470
475
480
485
435
440
445
450
455
460
465
470
475
480
485
0+50 1+00 1+50476.91480.032+00480.10480.052+50479.66480.453+00480.84480.843+50478.96470.434+00470.63470.664+50470.86471.435+00 5+50 6+00 6+50
7' RETAINED
HEIGHT
WETLAND
LOT 3
LOT 6
EAST DETENTION VAULT
WEST PROPERTY LINE
EAST PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING ELEVATION
AT SECTION LINE
FINISHED ELEVATION
AT SECTION LINE
FINISHED GRADE
AT SECTION LINE
EXISTING GRADE
AT SECTION LINE
10'
SUMP
ELEV: 456.50
BOTTOM
ELEV: 460.00
RIM
ELEV: 470.50
10.5'
91'
4'
15' CRITICAL
GEOLOGICAL
HAZARD BUFFER
2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403
253.383.2422TEL 253.383.2572FAX www.ahbl.comWEB
TACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIES
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
14
STKTDW/TDSTDW
MAY 20, 2020
PRELIMINARY PLAT
SUBMITTAL
2170933.10
PHIL MITCHELL
910 TRAFFIC AVENUE
SUMNER, WA 98390
MITCHELL
DEVELOPMENT II, LLC
THE SUMMIT AT
KENDALL RIDGE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 10, TWN. 21 N., RGE. 05 E. W.M.
CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
THE SUMMIT AT KENDALL RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT
DATE: May 20, 2020 FILENAME: Q:\2017\2170933\10_CIV\CAD\_Preliminary Plat\2170933-SH-GRAD-STRM.dwg
SITE SECTIONS
C2.2
7
SECTION A
SCALE: H: 1" = 30 FEET, V: 1" = 6 FEET
SECTION B
SCALE: H: 1" = 30 FEET, V: 1" = 6 FEET
06/03/2020
Page 251 of 380
470
475
480
485
470
475
480
485
0+50477.24477.971+00478.25478.571+50478.85479.082+00479.28479.922+50480.57480.813+00480.84481.323+50481.404+00
LOT 10
LOT 9
LOT 8
LOT 7 LOT 6
LOT 5
2' EXTENDED
FOUNDATION
ROAD A
NORTH PROPERTY LINE
SOUTH PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING ELEVATION
AT SECTION LINE
FINISHED ELEVATION
AT SECTION LINE
FINISHED GRADE
AT SECTION LINE
EXISTING GRADE
AT SECTION LINE
460
465
470
475
480
460
465
470
475
480
0+50475.07474.571+00473.30472.881+50472.44472.362+00472.05472.052+50471.08470.773+00470.47470.393+50 4+00
ROAD A LOT 11
LOT 12
LOT 13
EAST DETENTION VAULT
NORTH PROPERTY LINE
SOUTH PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING ELEVATION
AT SECTION LINE
FINISHED ELEVATION
AT SECTION LINE
FINISHED GRADE
AT SECTION LINE
EXISTING GRADE
AT SECTION LINE
RIM
ELEV: 470.50
BOTTOM
ELEV: 460.00
10.5'
40'
15' CRITICAL
GEOLOGICAL
HAZARD BUFFER
2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403
253.383.2422TEL 253.383.2572FAX www.ahbl.comWEB
TACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIES
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
14
STKTDW/TDSTDW
MAY 20, 2020
PRELIMINARY PLAT
SUBMITTAL
2170933.10
PHIL MITCHELL
910 TRAFFIC AVENUE
SUMNER, WA 98390
MITCHELL
DEVELOPMENT II, LLC
THE SUMMIT AT
KENDALL RIDGE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 10, TWN. 21 N., RGE. 05 E. W.M.
CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
THE SUMMIT AT KENDALL RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT
DATE: May 20, 2020 FILENAME: Q:\2017\2170933\10_CIV\CAD\_Preliminary Plat\2170933-SH-GRAD-STRM.dwg
SITE SECTIONS
C2.3
8
SECTION C
SCALE: H: 1" = 30 FEET, V: 1" = 3 FEET
SECTION D
SCALE: H: 1" = 30 FEET, V: 1" = 3 FEET
06/03/2020
Page 252 of 380
Profile View of Road A Centerline
Road A Centerline
470
475
480
485
490
495
500
470
475
480
485
490
495
500
0+00 0+50497.05496.801+00496.41495.741+50494.78493.552+00492.04490.252+50488.35486.703+00485.34484.273+50483.48482.944+00482.44482.194+50481.77481.045+00479.98478.595+50477.20476.126+00475.36474.906+50474.75474.927+00475.39476.187+50477.10477.748+00478.06478.058+50477.71477.109+00476.47475.839+50475.20474.5610+00473.92473.2910+50 10+85.17
3.77%
2.54%
1.00%
1.00%
6.
1
8
%
7.
7
3
%
2.00%
120.00' VC
PVI STA: 8+00.00
PVI ELEV: 479.01
HIGH PT STA: 8+11.67
HIGH PT ELEV: 478.10
K: 19.00
BVCS: 7+40.00BVCE: 476.75EVCS: 8+60.00EVCE: 477.48150.00' VC
PVI STA: 1+50.00
PVI ELEV: 496.05
HIGH PT STA: 0+75
HIGH PT ELEV: 496.80
K: 22.29
BVCS: 0+75.00BVCE: 496.80EVCS: 2+25.00EVCE: 490.25100.00' VC
PVI STA: 4+75.00
PVI ELEV: 481.69
HIGH PT STA: 4+25
HIGH PT ELEV: 482.19
K: 19.29
BVCS: 4+25.00BVCE: 482.19EVCS: 5+25.00EVCE: 478.59200.00' VC
PVI STA: 6+25.00
PVI ELEV: 472.41
LOW PT STA: 6+49.23
LOW PT ELEV: 474.75
K: 20.09
BVCS: 5+25.00BVCE: 478.59EVCS: 7+25.00EVCE: 476.18125.00' VC
PVI STA: 3+00.00
PVI ELEV: 484.45
LOW PT STA: 3+62.50
LOW PT ELEV: 483.19
K: 21.82
BVCS: 2+37.50BVCE: 489.28EVCS: 3+62.50EVCE: 483.19GRADE BREAK STA: 0+46.00ELEV: 497.089GRADE BREAK STA: 10+34.35
ELEV: 473.050GRADE BREAK STA: 4+00.62ELEV: 482.430EV ACCESS ROAD ROAD A
STA: 7+94.67
ELEV: 478.02
INTERSECTION
WITH ROAD B
CENTER OF CUL-DE-SAC
3.5'
3.5'
3.5'
3.5'
INTERSECTION SIGHT
DISTANCE FOR VEHICLES
ENTERING FROM 133RD
AVE SE PER AASHTO 3.2.6
INTERSECTION SIGHT
DISTANCE FOR VEHICLES
ENTERING FROM ROAD B
PER AASHTO 3.2.6
INTERSECTION
WITH 133RD AVE SE
PROPERTY LINE
CREST CURVE #1
CREST CURVE #2
CREST CURVE #3
SAG CURVE #1
SAG CURVE #2
END END END END END END END END END END
END
END
400'
END
300'
END
250'
END
250'
END
END
END
END
END
END
END
END
250'
END
250'
END
300'
END
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE PROVIDED PER AASHTO SECTION 3.2.6 (TYP.)
SSD REQUIRED FOR 30 MPH DESIGN SPEED, 9% DOWNGRADE = 227 FEET (AASHTO TABLE 3-2)
DRIVER'S EYE HEIGHT = 3.5 FEET
OBJECT HEIGHT = 2.0 FEET
ENDENDENDENDENDENDENDENDEND
475
480
485
490
495
475
480
485
490
495
11+00478.02477.5511+50477.33477.4312+00477.85478.4812+50 12+89.02
2.00%2.54%
GRADE BREAK STA: 11+00.00
ELEV: 478.023
GRADE BREAK STA: 12+34.02ELEV: 478.70590.00' VC
PVI STA: 11+60.00
PVI ELEV: 476.82
LOW PT STA: 11+54.62
LOW PT ELEV: 477.33
K: 19.81
BVCS: 11+15.00BVCE: 477.72EVCS: 12+05.00EVCE: 477.97SAG CURVE #3
1
5,162 SF
2
4,526 SF
7
4,438 SF
8
4,694 SF
10
4,502 SF 11
4,783 SF
12
4,562 SF
13
4,562 SF 14
4,633 SF
15
5,511 SF
16
5,697 SF
9
4,572 SF
17
4,983 SF
HIGHWAY 18133RD AVE SE(LOCAL RESIDENTIAL)16+7515+00
16+004+00 5+00 6+00
7+00
8+00
9+00
10+00
11+00
12+00
13+00
14+00INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE
ROAD A STA: 7+94.67 =
ROAD B STA: 11+00.00
ROAD A
ROAD B250'335'
INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE
PROPOSED STREET LIGHT
(TYP.)
PROPOSED STREET LIGHT
(TYP.)
PEDESTRIAN SIGHT DISTANCE
14'
14.5'
2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403
253.383.2422TEL 253.383.2572FAX www.ahbl.comWEB
TACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIES
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
14
STKTDW/TDSTDW
MAY 20, 2020
PRELIMINARY PLAT
SUBMITTAL
2170933.10
PHIL MITCHELL
910 TRAFFIC AVENUE
SUMNER, WA 98390
MITCHELL
DEVELOPMENT II, LLC
THE SUMMIT AT
KENDALL RIDGE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 10, TWN. 21 N., RGE. 05 E. W.M.
CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
THE SUMMIT AT KENDALL RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT
DATE: May 20, 2020 FILENAME: Q:\2017\2170933\10_CIV\CAD\_Preliminary Plat\2170933-SH-SGHT-DIST.dwg
SIGHT DISTANCE
ANALYSIS
C2.4
9
ROAD A PROFILE
SCALE: H: 1" = 50 FEET, V: 1" = 5 FEET
ROAD B PROFILE
SCALE: H: 1" = 50 FEET, V: 1" = 5 FEET
N
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 30 60
1" = 30 FEET
15
INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE
ROAD A IS THE MAJOR ROAD IN THE INTERSECTION
ROAD A POSTED SPEED LIMIT = 25 MPH
ROAD A DESIGN SPEED = 30 MPH
AASHTO TABLE 9-6: LEFT TURN FROM STOP DESIGN INTERSECTION SIGHT
DISTANCE = 335 FEET
AASHTO TABLE 9-8: RIGHT TURN FROM STOP DESIGN INTERSECTION SIGHT
DISTANCE = 290 FEET
SPEED LIMITS
DESIGN SPEED LIMITS SHALL BE 5 MPH GREATER THAN THE POSTED SPEED PER
COA ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARDS 10.02.7. THE DESIGN SPEEDS MAY RANGE
FROM 20 MPH TO 30 MPH PER AASHTO CHAPTER 5 - LOCAL ROADS AND STREETS.
ROAD A:POSTED SPEED = 25 MPH, DESIGN SPEED = 30 MPH
ROAD B:POSTED SPEED = 25 MPH, DESIGN SPEED = 30 MPH
EV ACCESS ROAD:POSTED SPEED = 25 MPH, DESIGN SPEED = 30 MPH
SHARED ACCESS ROAD: POSTED SPEED = 25 MPH, DESIGN SPEED = 30 MPH
VERTICAL SIGHT DISTANCE FOR CREST CURVES
POSTED SPEED LIMIT = 25 MPH
DESIGN SPEED = 30 MPH
AASHTO TABLE 3-34: DESIGN CONTROLS FOR CREST VERTICAL CURVES
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE REQUIRED = 200 FEET
MINIMUM DESIGN RATE OF CURVATURE (K) = 19
CREST CURVE #1:
GRADE DIFFERENCE (A) = 7.73% - 1.00% = 6.73%
MINIMUM LENGTH OF VERTICAL CURVE = K*A = 19*6.73 = 127.9 FEET
LENGTH PROVIDED = 150 FEET
CREST CURVE #2:
GRADE DIFFERENCE (A) = 6.18% - 1.00% = 5.18%
MINIMUM LENGTH OF VERTICAL CURVE = K*A = 19*5.18 = 98.4 FEET
LENGTH PROVIDED = 100 FEET
CREST CURVE #3:
GRADE DIFFERENCE (A) = 3.77% + 2.54% = 6.31%
MINIMUM LENGTH OF VERTICAL CURVE = K*A = 19*6.31 = 119.9 FEET
LENGTH PROVIDED = 120 FEET
VERTICAL SIGHT DISTANCE
SINCE LIGHTING WILL BE PROVIDED FOR THE
ON-SITE ROADS, THE MINIMUM LENGTH OF SAG
CURVES IS BASED ON PASSENGER COMFORT
INSTEAD OF HEADLIGHT SIGHT DISTANCE.
AASHTO EQUATION 3-51:
L = (A*V^2)/46.5, WHERE V = DESIGN SPEED = 30 MPH
SAG CURVE #1:
GRADE DIFFERENCE (A) = 7.73% - 2.00% = 5.73%
MINIMUM LENGTH (L) = (5.73*30^2)/46.5 = 110.9 FEET
LENGTH PROVIDED = 125 FEET
SAG CURVE #2:
GRADE DIFFERENCE (A) = 6.18% + 3.77% = 9.95%
MINIMUM LENGTH (L) = (9.95*30^2)/46.5 = 192.6 FEET
LENGTH PROVIDED = 200 FEET
SAG CURVE #3:
GRADE DIFFERENCE (A) = 2.00% + 2.54% = 4.54%
MINIMUM LENGTH (L) = (4.54*30^2)/46.5 = 87.9 FEET
LENGTH PROVIDED = 90 FEET
FOR SAG CURVES
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE
DESIGN SPEED = 30 MPH
AASHTO TABLE 3-1: STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE ON LEVEL ROADWAYS
DESIGN STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE = 200 FEET
AASHTO TABLE 3-2: STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE ON GRADES
DOWNGRADES: 3% = 205 FEET, 6% = 215 FEET, 9% = 227 FEET
UPGRADES: 3% = 200 FEET, 6% = 184 FEET, 9% = 179 FEET
06/03/2020
Page 253 of 380
1
5,162 SF
2
4,526 SF
3
4,370 SF
4
4,464 SF
5
4,661 SF
6
4,745 SF
7
4,438 SF
8
4,694 SF
10
4,502 SF
9
4,572 SF
12+00
14+83
13+00
14+00ROAD B11
4,783 SF
12
4,562 SF
13
4,562 SF 14
4,633 SF
15
5,511 SF
16
5,697 SF
17
4,983 SF
16+7515+00
16+0010+00
ROAD A1
5,162 SF
2
4,526 SF
3
4,370 SF
4
4,464 SF
5
4,661 SF
6
4,745 SF
7
4,438 SF
8
4,694 SF
10
4,502 SF
9
4,572 SF
12+00
14+83
13+00
14+00ROAD B2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403
253.383.2422TEL 253.383.2572FAX www.ahbl.comWEB
TACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIES
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
14
STKTDW/TDSTDW
MAY 20, 2020
PRELIMINARY PLAT
SUBMITTAL
2170933.10
PHIL MITCHELL
910 TRAFFIC AVENUE
SUMNER, WA 98390
MITCHELL
DEVELOPMENT II, LLC
THE SUMMIT AT
KENDALL RIDGE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 10, TWN. 21 N., RGE. 05 E. W.M.
CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
THE SUMMIT AT KENDALL RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT
DATE: May 20, 2020 FILENAME: Q:\2017\2170933\10_CIV\CAD\_Preliminary Plat\2170933-SH-SGHT-DIST.dwg
TURNING
TEMPLATES
C2.5
10
N
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 30 60
1" = 30 FEET
15
N
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 30 60
1" = 30 FEET
15
N
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 30 60
1" = 30 FEET
15
LOT 4 TURNING TEMPLATE LOT 5 TURNING TEMPLATE DETENTION VAULT TURNING TEMPLATE
AASHTO P - PASSENGER CAR
AASHTO P - PASSENGER CAR
AASHTO SU-30 - SINGLE UNIT TRUCK
06/03/2020
Page 254 of 380
6"
2'-0"VARIES (2'-6" MAX)914" MIN2"
CLR
CONC CURB AND
GUTTER
3/8" EXP JOINT
5" THICK REINFORCED SOG FOR
EXTENT SHOWN ON PLAN - REINF W/
#4 AT 16" OC EA WAY AT CL - STOP ALL
REINF AT SIDEWALK CONST/EXP
JOINTS, AT CRACK CONTROL JOINTS
CUT OR STOP ALT LONGIT BARS
LUMINAIRE FOUNDATION DEPTHLUMINAIRE FDN PER CITY OF
AUBURN STD DETAIL T-19.3. FOR
CONC PAD ABV FDN FLUSH W/
SIDEWALK SEE STD DETAIL T-18.2
6" CONTINUE STEMWALL
PAST POLE FDN
(3) #4 CONT - TERMINATE
EA SIDE OF LUMINAIRE
FDN
EXP JOINT AT LUMINAIRE
PAD PER DETAIL T-18.2
#4 VERT AT 12" OC
- OMIT HORIZ LEG AT
LUMINAIRE FDN
TOOLED EDGE PER
TYP CURB DETAILS
(1) #4 CONT
PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION JNT IN
WALL EVERY 40'-0" MAX W/ CONTROL
JNT EQUAL DISTANCE BETWEEN
CONSTRUCTION JNT - SEE
WSDOT CLASS 4000 CONC, TYP
3/4" CHAMFER- TYP
MIN (2) ADDL VERT
BARS AT ENDS OF
WALL
3/4" CHAMFER - TYP
BREAK WALL HORIZONTAL
REINF EA SIDE OF JOINT
BREAK WALL
HORIZONTAL REINF EA
SIDE OF JOINT
CORNER CONDITION
SHOWN DASHED
CORNER BARS IN LIEU
OF DOWELS AT
CORNER CONDITION
CORNER CONDITION
SHOWN DASHED
CORNER BARS IN LIEU
OF DOWELS AT
CORNER CONDITION
INTERIOR FACE
EXTERIOR FACE
TYPICAL WALL CONTROL JOINT
TYPICAL WALL CONSTRUCTION JOINT
INTERIOR FACE
EXTERIOR FACE
#4 x 4'-0" DIAGONAL REINF CENTERED
ON INTERIOR CORNERS OF LUMINAIRE
FTG (2 PLACES TOTAL)
2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403
253.383.2422TEL 253.383.2572FAX www.ahbl.comWEB
TACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIES
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
14
STKTDW/TDSTDW
DECEMBER 19, 2019
PRELIMINARY PLAT
SUBMITTAL
2170933.10
PHIL MITCHELL
910 TRAFFIC AVENUE
SUMNER, WA 98390
MITCHELL
DEVELOPMENT II, LLC
THE SUMMIT AT
KENDALL RIDGE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 10, TWN. 21 N., RGE. 05 E. W.M.
CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
THE SUMMIT AT KENDALL RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT
DATE: December 19, 2019 FILENAME: Q:\2017\2170933\10_CIV\CAD\_Preliminary Plat\2170933-SH-SGHT-DIST.dwg
ROAD A SIDEWALK
DETAILS
C2.6
11
1 SCALE: 1" = 1'
SIDEWALK WITH RETAINING WALL
12/19/2019
12/23/2019
06/03/2020
Page 255 of 380
1
5,162 SF
2
4,526 SF
3
4,370 SF
4
4,464 SF
5
4,661 SF
6
4,745 SF
7
4,438 SF
8
4,694 SF
10
4,502 SF 11
4,783 SF
12
4,562 SF
13
4,562 SF 14
4,633 SF
15
5,511 SF
16
5,697 SF
9
4,572 SF
17
4,983 SF
HIGHWAY 18CB #3
CB #2
CB #5 CB #4
CB #1 CB #6
CB #7
CB #8
WEST DETENTION POND
EAST DETENTION VAULT
10' MINIMUM
SEPARATION (TYP.)
ROAD A
(LOCAL RESIDENTIAL)133RD AVE SE(LOCAL RESIDENTIAL)ROAD B(LOCAL RESIDENTIAL)28.5'
28'
8" DI CL52 WATER MAIN
4" DI CL52 WATER MAIN
IE: 457.59 (8" PVC NE)
8" DI CL52 WATER MAIN
8" DI CL52
WATER MAIN 6" DI CL52
HYDRANT RUN
6" DI CL52 HYDRANT RUN
8" DI CL52
WATER MAIN
6" DI CL52 HYDRANT RUN
8" DI CL52 WATER MAIN
15+0016+0016+754+00 5+00 6+00
7+00
8+00
9+00
10+00
11+00
12+0014+83
1
3
+
0
0
14+00EV ACCESS GATE.
20' CLEAR WIDTH
SECURED WITH KNOX PADLOCK
MODEL #3770 OR #3772.
RETAINING WALL.
REFER TO SHEET C2.0TRACT DTRACT ETRACT A
TRACT B
TRACT F
SSMH #4
RIM: 479.88
IE: 458.86 8" (N)
IE: 458.80 8" (S)
SSMH #3
RIM: 478.12
IE: 461.67 8" (E)
IE: 461.61 8" (S)
IE: 461.67 8" (N)
SSMH #2
RIM: 473.59
IE: 463.79 8" (S)
IE: 463.73 8" (W)
SSMH #1
RIM: 471.65
IE: 465.35 8" (N)
156 LF 8"
PVC @ 1.00%
206 LF 8" PVC @ 1.00%
275 LF 8"
PVC @ 1.00%
44 LF 8" PVC @ 2.75%
'NO PARKING'
'FIRE LANE'
SIGN
PARCEL #1021059079
PARCEL #3814901080
KENDALL RIDGE TRACT B
PARCEL #3814901090
KENDALL RIDGE TRACT C
PARCEL #3814901110
KENDALL RIDGE TRACT E
PARCEL #3814901100
KENDALL RIDGE TRACT D
PARCEL #3814900850
PARCEL #3814900840
PARCEL #3814900830
PARCEL #3814900820
PARCEL #3814900810
PARCEL #3814900800
PARCEL #3814900790
PARCEL #3814900780
PARCEL #3814901120
KENDALL RIDGE TRACT K
PROPOSED STREET
LIGHT (TYP.)
BLOW-OFF VALVE
TRACT C
EXISTING AIRVAC AND
WATER JUNCTION BOX
EXISTING 8"
WATER MAIN
20 LF 8" PVC @ 1.00%
PROVIDE STUB FOR
FUTURE CONNECTION TO
PARCEL #1021059079
8" DI CL52 WATER MAIN
FOR FUTURE CONNECTION
TO PARCEL #1021059079
EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS AND PRIVATE DRIVE132RD AVE SE(MINOR ARTERIAL)0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00
'NO PARKING'
'FIRE LANE'
SIGN
'NO PARKING'
'FIRE LANE'
SIGN
'NO PARKING'
'FIRE LANE'
SIGN
'NO PARKING'
'FIRE LANE'
SIGN
2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403
253.383.2422TEL 253.383.2572FAX www.ahbl.comWEB
TACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIES
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
14
STKTDW/TDSTDW
MAY 20, 2020
PRELIMINARY PLAT
SUBMITTAL
2170933.10
PHIL MITCHELL
910 TRAFFIC AVENUE
SUMNER, WA 98390
MITCHELL
DEVELOPMENT II, LLC
THE SUMMIT AT
KENDALL RIDGE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 10, TWN. 21 N., RGE. 05 E. W.M.
CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
THE SUMMIT AT KENDALL RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT
DATE: December 12, 2019 FILENAME: Q:\2017\2170933\10_CIV\CAD\_Preliminary Plat\2170933-SH-UTIL.dwg
CONCEPTUAL
UTILITY PLAN
C3.0
12
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 30 60
1" = 30 FEET
15
N
KENDALL
RIDGE
RACEWAY MINI
STORAGE
MATCHLINEMATCHLINEEMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS NOTE
THE WEST SHARED ACCESS (TRACT D) AND THE EAST SHARED ACCESS (TRACT
E) SHALL BE MARKED WITH FIRE LANE PAINTING AT 50 FOOT INTERVALS PER
AUBURN CITY CODE 10.36.175. TWO FORMS OF FIRE LANE IDENTIFICATION
SHALL BE PROVIDED; ONE TO MARK THE LANE AND ANOTHER TO IDENTIFY IT.
FIRE SPRINKLER NOTE
ALL PROPOSED LOTS SHALL INCLUDE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS.
SEWER NOTE
LOTS 14 THROUGH 17 WILL REQUIRE INTERNAL EJECTOR PUMPS FOR ANY
DRAINAGE FACILITIES LOCATED BELOW THE MAIN FLOOR.
REC #20110420000368
06/03/2020
Page 256 of 380
1
5,162 SF
2
4,526 SF
3
4,370 SF
4
4,464 SF
5
4,661 SF
6
4,745 SF
7
4,438 SF
8
4,694 SF
10
4,502 SF 11
4,783 SF
12
4,562 SF
13
4,562 SF 14
4,633 SF
15
5,511 SF
16
5,697 SF
9
4,572 SF
17
4,983 SF
Δ
HIGHWAY 18133RD AVE SE(LOCAL RESIDENTIAL)2x8" ALDER
18" MAPLE
2x12" MAPLE
8" CEDAR
14" CEDAR
8" MAPLE 12" FIR
14" FIR
8" UNKNOWN
10" UNKNOWN
14" FIR
16" FIR
20" FIR
8" UNKNOWN
2x6" UNKNOWN
14" FIR
20" FIR
20" FIR
18" FIR
20" FIR
18" FIR
16" FIR
18" MAPLE
12" MAPLE
12" MAPLE
14" ALDER
PROPOSED GRADING LIMITS (TYP.)
PROPOSED GRADING LIMITS (TYP.)
WEST DETENTION POND
EAST DETENTION VAULT
ROAD A
(LOCAL RESIDENTIAL)ROAD B(LOCAL RESIDENTIAL)PARCEL #3814901080
KENDALL RIDGE TRACT B
PARCEL #3814901090
KENDALL RIDGE TRACT C
PARCEL #3814901110
KENDALL RIDGE TRACT E
PARCEL #3814901100
KENDALL RIDGE TRACT D
PARCEL #3814900850
PARCEL #3814900840
PARCEL #3814900830
PARCEL #3814900820
PARCEL #3814900810
PARCEL #3814900800
PARCEL #3814900790
PARCEL #3814900780
PARCEL #3814901120
KENDALL RIDGE TRACT K
RETAINING WALL.
REFER TO SHEET C2.0
TRACT DTRACT ETRACT A
TRACT B
TRACT C
PROPOSED STREET
LIGHT (TYP.)
TRACT F
132RD AVE SE(MINOR ARTERIAL)2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403
253.383.2422TEL 253.383.2572FAX www.ahbl.comWEB
TACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIES
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
14
STKTDW/TDSTDW
MAY 20, 2020
PRELIMINARY PLAT
SUBMITTAL
2170933.10
PHIL MITCHELL
910 TRAFFIC AVENUE
SUMNER, WA 98390
MITCHELL
DEVELOPMENT II, LLC
THE SUMMIT AT
KENDALL RIDGE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 10, TWN. 21 N., RGE. 05 E. W.M.
CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
THE SUMMIT AT KENDALL RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT
DATE: May 20, 2020 FILENAME: Q:\2017\2170933\10_CIV\CAD\_Preliminary Plat\2170933-SH-LANDSCAPE.dwg
CONCEPTUAL
LANDSCAPE AND
RE-VEGETATION PLAN
C4.0
13
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 30 60
1" = 30 FEET
15
N
KENDALL
RIDGE
RACEWAY MINI
STORAGE
MATCHLINEMATCHLINELANDSCAPE NOTE
ALL EXISTING TREES WITHIN WORK LIMITS TO BE REMOVED.
STREET TREES TO BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
AUBURN MUNICIPAL CODE. FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN TO BE
SUBMITTED BY AHBL AND APPROVED BY CITY OF AUBURN
AS PART OF SITE DEVELOPMENT.
ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE RE-VEGETATED.
LEGEND
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREAS
SLOPE REVEGETATION AREA
TREE TO REMAIN
REC #20110420000368
06/03/2020
Page 257 of 380
1
5,162 SF
2
4,526 SF
3
4,370 SF
4
4,464 SF
WEST DETENTION POND
ROAD A
(LOCAL RESIDENTIAL)ROAD B(LOCAL RESIDENTIAL)PARCEL #3814901080
KENDALL RIDGE TRACT B
PARCEL #3814901090
KENDALL RIDGE TRACT C
PARCEL #3814901110
KENDALL RIDGE TRACT E
PARCEL #3814901120
KENDALL RIDGE TRACT K
TRACT DTRACT A
TRACT B
1,043.03 SF ADDED BUFFER
EXISTING ON-SITE BUFFER
TO REMAIN = 10,399.49 SF
23.39' REDUCTION
IN BUFFER WIDTH
2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403
253.383.2422TEL 253.383.2572FAX www.ahbl.comWEB
TACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIES
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
14
STKTDW/TDSTDW
MAY 20, 2020
PRELIMINARY PLAT
SUBMITTAL
2170933.10
PHIL MITCHELL
910 TRAFFIC AVENUE
SUMNER, WA 98390
MITCHELL
DEVELOPMENT II, LLC
THE SUMMIT AT
KENDALL RIDGE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 10, TWN. 21 N., RGE. 05 E. W.M.
CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
THE SUMMIT AT KENDALL RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT
DATE: September 4, 2019 FILENAME: Q:\2017\2170933\10_CIV\CAD\_Preliminary Plat\2170933-SH-WETLAND.dwg
WETLAND BUFFER
MITIGATION
C4.1
14
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 20 40
1" = 20 FEET
10
N
KENDALL
RIDGE
SUMMIT AT KENDALL RIDGE GOALS/OBJECTIVES,
MONITORING SCHEDULE AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
OBJECTIVES PROTECT EXISTING ONSITE WETLAND.
ENHANCE 12,066.8 SF OF EXISTING AND ADDED WETLAND BUFFER WITH NATIVE TREES AND
SHRUBS.
GOALS MEET CITY REQUIREMENTS TO MAINTAIN WATER QUANTITY TO THE WETLAND.
TO USE BMP'S REQUIRED BY THE CITY DURING CONSTRUCTION TO ENSURE WATER QUALITY
AND FLOW CONTROL.
TO REMOVE NONNATIVE, INVASIVE NOXIOUS WEEDS IN THE BUFFER AREAS TO ALLOW NATIVE
TREES AND SHRUBS TO DOMINATE THESE AREAS.
PLANT THE DESIGNATED BUFFER AREAS WITH NATIVE TREES AND SHRUBS.
MONITORING REPORTS 30 DAYS AFTER PLANTING. BASELINE MONITORING/AS-BUILT REPORT DUE TO CITY.
ANNUALLY AT THE END OF THE GROWING SEASON ( AUGUST TO MID-SEPTEMBER) FOR THREE
YEARS. ANNUAL REPORTS DUE TO THE CITY BY DECEMBER OF EACH YEAR.
PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS YEAR 1: 95% SURVIVAL OF PLANTED TREES AND SHRUBS.
YEAR 2: 80% SURVIVAL OF PLANTED OR VOLUNTEER NATIVE TREES AND SHRUBS.
YEAR 3: 80% SURVIVAL OF PLANTED OR VOLUNTEER NATIVE TREES AND SHRUBS.
NO MORE THAN TEN PERCENT COVER OF NONNATIVE OR OTHER INVASIVES, E.G., HIMALAYAN
BLACKBERRY, JAPANESE KNOTWEED, EVERGREEN BLACKBERRY, SCOT'S BROOM, ENGLISH IVY,
MORNING GLORY, ETC., IS PERMISSIBLE IN THE OVERALL MITIGATION AREA IN ANY MONITORING
YEAR.
LEGEND
WETLAND
OFF-SITE BUFFER
IMPACT AREA
ON-SITE BUFFER
IMPACT AREA
EXISTING ON-SITE
BUFFER
ADDED BUFFER
REC #20110420000368
623.77 SF ADDED BUFFER
ON-SITE BUFFER IMPACT AREA = 467.16 SF
OFF-SITE BUFFER IMPACT AREA = 476.29 SF
06/03/2020
Page 258 of 380
EXHIBIT 8
Page 259 of 380
Page 260 of 380
Page 261 of 380
Page 262 of 380
Page 263 of 380
Page 264 of 380
Page 265 of 380
Page 266 of 380
Page 267 of 380
Page 268 of 380
Page 269 of 380
Page 270 of 380
Page 271 of 380
Page 272 of 380
Page 273 of 380
Page 274 of 380
Page 275 of 380
Page 276 of 380
Page 277 of 380
Page 278 of 380
Page 279 of 380
EXHIBIT 9
Page 280 of 380
Page 281 of 380
Page 282 of 380
Page 283 of 380
Page 284 of 380
Page 285 of 380
Page 286 of 380
Page 287 of 380
Page 288 of 380
Page 289 of 380
Page 290 of 380
Not included in Hearing Examiner Packet.
Page 291 of 380
Not included in Hearing Examiner Packet.
Page 292 of 380
Not included in Hearing Examiner Packet.
Page 293 of 380
Not included in Hearing Examiner Packet.
Page 294 of 380
EXHIBIT 10
Page 295 of 380
South Sound Geotechnical Consulting
April 3, 2019
Mitchell Development, LLC
910 Traffic Avenue
Sumner, WA 98390
Attention: Mr. Phil Mitchell
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report – Revised (Draft)
Summit at Kendal Ridge (formerly Mitchell Auburn Plat)
132nd Avenue East
Auburn, Washington
SSGC Project No. 18011
Mr. Mitchell,
South Sound Geotechnical Consulting (SSGC) has completed revisions of our geotechnical report (dated
April 13, 2018) for this project relative to modifications to planned layout of lots and stormwater ponds
and comments from the City of Auburn (letter dated May 31, 2018).
PROJECT INFORMATION
A new residential plat is planned on property at 30440 – 132nd Avenue East in Auburn, Washington. The
property encompasses about 4.5 acres. Revised plans for the development include seventeen individual
single-family lots are planned. Access to the development will be from 133rd Avenue SE. Stormwater
ponds are planned in the southeast and northwest portions of the development.
We anticipate residences will be multi-story structures. Conventional spread footing foundations are
planned with concrete slab-on-grade garage floors. Asphalt paving is anticipated for access roads and
driveways.
SITE CONDITIONS
The property is east of 132nd Avenue East and bounded by single family development on the north, south
and west, with State Highway 18 (SR 18) to the east. A single family residence was in the northeastern
portion of the site at the time of our fieldwork in April 2018. Grounds around the residence were
landscaped lawn. The central and western portions are mostly grass field with some trees and brush. A
wetland is along the western boundary. The east boundary of the property and the SR 18 easement are
forested.
Site grades from the east-central portion of the site generally slope gently down to the west. Moderate
east-facing slopes are to the east of the residence and in the SR 18 easement.
Page 296 of 380
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report SSGC
The Summit at Kendall Ridge (formerly Mitchell Auburn Plat)
132nd Avenue East
Auburn, Washington
SSGC Project No. 18011
April 3, 2019
2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Subsurface conditions were characterized by completing six test pits on the site on April 4, 2018. Test
pits were advanced to final depths between about 6 and 11 feet below existing ground surface.
Approximate locations of the test pits are shown on Figure 1, Exploration Plan. Logs of the test pits are
provided in Appendix A. A summary description of observed subgrade conditions is provided below.
Soil Conditions
Surface topsoil was observed in all test pits and ranged in depth from about 6 inches to 1 foot at
the test pit locations. Native soils below the topsoil consisted of silty sand to sandy silt with roots.
This soil was in a loose condition and extended to about 2 feet. It was not observed in test pit TP-
4. Silty sand with gravel and variable clay was below the upper sand. This soil was in a loose to
medium dense condition and extended to depths ranging from 2 to 6 feet. Below this soil was
glacial till consisting of silty sand with gravel. Till was in a medium dense to dense condition
and extended to the termination depth of the test pits.
Groundwater Conditions
Seepage was observed test pit TP-1 at a depth of about 3 feet at the time of excavation. This test
pit was located closest to the wetland area bordering the western boundary of the property.
Groundwater was not observed in the other test pits. Note the test pits were excavated in the
month of April when seasonal winter groundwater levels are typically near their highest. Dense
glacial till is considered impermeable to vertical groundwater flow and can cause perched
groundwater conditions, particularly during the wetter seasons of the year. Groundwater levels
should be anticipated to fluctuate due to seasonal precipitation variations and on- and off-site
drainage patterns.
Geologic Setting
Soils within the project area have been classified by the NRCS Soil Survey. Site soils are
mapped as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. Alderwood soils reportedly formed in glacial till.
Native soils in the excavations appear to conform to the mapped soil type.
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The development is considered feasible based on observed soil conditions in the test pits. Properly
prepared native soils can be used for support of conventional spread footing foundations and pavements.
Infiltration to assist in stormwater control will be difficult at this site. The dense glacial till at fairly
shallow depth will create a barrier to vertical groundwater flow. We understand the City of Auburn is
requiring open ponds for stormwater control. Current plans show the ponds in the southeast and
northwest portions of the site. The southeast pond could be considered provided it is lined to limit
potential seepage into hillside soils above the SR 18 easement.
Page 297 of 380
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report SSGC
The Summit at Kendall Ridge (formerly Mitchell Auburn Plat)
132nd Avenue East
Auburn, Washington
SSGC Project No. 18011
April 3, 2019
3
Recommendations presented in the following sections should be considered general and may require
modifications when earthwork and grading occur. They are based upon the subsurface conditions
observed in the test pits and the assumption that finish site grades will be similar to existing grades. It
should be noted subsurface conditions across the site may vary from those depicted on the exploration
logs and can change with time, especially on sites with previous development. Therefore, proper site
preparation will depend upon the weather and soil conditions encountered at the time of construction. We
recommend SSGC review final plans and further assess subgrade conditions at the time of construction,
as warranted.
General Site Preparation
Site grading and earthwork should include procedures to control surface water runoff. Grading the site
without adequate drainage control measures may negatively impact site soils, resulting in increased export
of impacted soil and import of fill materials, thereby potentially increasing the cost of the earthwork and
subgrade preparation phases of the project.
Site grading should include removal (stripping) of topsoil and any fill encountered, or very loose or soft
soils in building and pavement areas. Subgrades should consist of firm, undisturbed native soils
following stripping.
General Subgrade Preparation
Subgrades in building footprints and pavement areas should consist of firm, undisturbed native soil. We
recommend exposed subgrades in building and conventional pavement areas are proofrolled using a large
roller, loaded dump truck, or other mechanical equipment to assess subgrade conditions following
stripping. Proofrolling efforts should result in the upper 1 foot of subgrade soils in building and
conventional pavement areas achieving a compaction level of at least 95 percent of the maximum dry
density (MDD) per the ASTM D1557 test method. Wet, loose, or soft subgrades that cannot achieve this
compaction level should be removed (over-excavated) and replaced with structural fill. The depth of
over-excavation should be based on soil conditions at the time of construction. A representative of SSGC
should be present to assess subgrade conditions during proofrolling.
Subgrade preparation guidelines for porous (pervious) pavements typically recommend limiting or
eliminating compaction of subgrade so densification and reduction of infiltration capacity will not occur.
Subgrades in porous (pervious) pavement areas should only be proofrolled using static or light weight
compaction equipment. Probing of porous pavement subgrades should be completed to identify soft or
loose areas that should be remediated.
Page 298 of 380
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report SSGC
The Summit at Kendall Ridge (formerly Mitchell Auburn Plat)
132nd Avenue East
Auburn, Washington
SSGC Project No. 18011
April 3, 2019
4
Grading and Drainage
Positive drainage should be provided during construction and maintained throughout the life of the
development. Allowing surface water into cut or fill areas, utility trenches and building footprints should
be prevented. Temporary and permanent drainage systems should prevent stormwater from flowing onto
slopes in the eastern portion of the site and onto the SR 18 right-of-way.
Structural Fill Materials
The suitability of soil for use as structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the
soil when it is placed. Soils with higher fines content (soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) will
become sensitive with higher moisture content. It is often difficult to achieve adequate compaction if soil
moisture is outside of optimum ranges for soils that contain more than about 5 percent fines.
Site Soils: Topsoil or organic rich soils are not considered suitable as structural fill. Native soils
observed could be suitable for use as structural fill provided they can be moisture conditioned to
within optimal ranges. Some of the native soils have considerable fine (silt) content and therefore
will be moisture sensitive and difficult to use as structural fill. Optimum moisture is considered
within about +/- 2 percent of the moisture content required to achieve the maximum dry density
(MDD) per the ASTM D-1557 test method. If moisture content is higher or lower than optimum,
soils would need to be dried or wetted prior to placement as structural fill.
Import Fill Materials: We recommend import structural fill placed during dry weather consist of
material which meets the specifications for Gravel Borrow as described in Section 9-03.14(1) of
the 2018 Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Specifications for Road,
Bridge, and Municipal Construction (Publication M 41-10). Gravel Borrow should be protected
from disturbance if exposed to wet conditions after placement.
During wet weather, or for backfill on wet subgrades, import soil suitable for compaction in
wetter conditions should be provided. Imported fill for use in wet conditions should conform to
specifications for Select Borrow as described in Section 9-03.14(2), or Crushed Surfacing per
Section 9-03.9(3) of the 2018 WSDOT M-41 manual, with the modification that a maximum of 5
percent by weight shall pass the U.S. No. 200 sieve for these soil types.
Structural fill placement and compaction is weather-dependent. Delays due to inclement weather
are common, even when using select granular fill. We recommend site grading and earthwork be
scheduled for the drier months of the year. Structural fill should not consist of frozen material.
Page 299 of 380
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report SSGC
The Summit at Kendall Ridge (formerly Mitchell Auburn Plat)
132nd Avenue East
Auburn, Washington
SSGC Project No. 18011
April 3, 2019
5
Structural Fill Placement
We recommend structural fill is placed in lifts not exceeding about 10 inches in loose measure. It may be
necessary to adjust lift thickness based on site and fill conditions during placement and compaction. Finer
grained soil used as structural fill and/or lighter weight compaction equipment may require significantly
thinner lifts to attain required compaction levels. Granular soil with lower fines contents could potentially
be placed in thicker lifts if they can be adequately compacted. Structural fill should be compacted to
attain the recommended levels presented in Table 1, Compaction Criteria.
Table 1. Compaction Criteria
Fill Application Compaction Criteria*
Footing areas 95 %
Upper 2 feet in pavement areas, slabs and sidewalks, and utility trenches 95 %
Below 2 feet in pavement areas, slabs and sidewalks, and utility trenches 92 %
Utility trenches or general fill in non-paved or -building areas 90 %
*Per the ASTM D 1557 test method.
Trench backfill within about 2 feet of utility lines should not be over-compacted to reduce the risk of
damage to the line. In some instances the top of the utility line may be within 2 feet of the surface.
Backfill in these circumstances should be compacted to a firm and unyielding condition.
We recommend fill procedures include maintaining grades that promote drainage and do not allow
ponding of water within the fill area. The contractor should protect compacted fill subgrades from
disturbance during wet weather. In the event of rain during structural fill placement, the exposed fill
surface should be allowed to dry prior to placement of additional fill. Alternatively, the wet soil can be
removed. We recommend consideration is given to protecting haul routes and other high traffic areas
with free-draining granular fill material (i.e. sand and gravel containing less than 5 percent fines) or
quarry spalls to reduce the potential for disturbance to the subgrade during inclement weather.
Structural or embankment fill placed on slopes should be benched into firm (dense) native glacial till.
Benches should be excavated level (or with a slight incline into the hillside). Benches should be a
maximum of 2 feet high and wide enough to accommodate a conventional vibratory smooth-drum roller
capable of compacting fill to at least 95 percent of the MDD per the ASTM D 1557 test method.
Page 300 of 380
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report SSGC
The Summit at Kendall Ridge (formerly Mitchell Auburn Plat)
132nd Avenue East
Auburn, Washington
SSGC Project No. 18011
April 3, 2019
6
Earthwork Procedures
Conventional earthmoving equipment should be suitable for earthwork at this site. Earthwork may be
difficult during periods of wet weather or if elevated soil moisture is present. Excavated site soils may
not be suitable as structural fill depending on the soil moisture content and weather conditions at the
time of earthwork. If soils are stockpiled and wet weather is anticipated, the stockpile should be
protected with securely anchored plastic sheeting. If stockpiled soils become wet and unusable, it will
become necessary to import clean, granular soils to complete wet weather site work.
Wet or disturbed subgrade soils should be over-excavated to expose firm, non-yielding, non-organic soils
and backfilled with compacted structural fill. We recommend the earthwork portion of this project be
completed during extended periods of dry weather. If earthwork is completed during the wet season
(typically October through May) it may be necessary to take extra measures to protect subgrade soils.
If earthwork takes place during freezing conditions, we recommend the exposed subgrade is allowed to
thaw and re-compacted prior to placing subsequent lifts of structural fill. Alternatively, the frozen soil
can be removed to unfrozen soil and replaced with structural fill.
The contractor is responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations (including
utility trenches) as required to maintain stability of excavation sides and bottoms. Excavations should be
sloped or shored in the interest of safety following local and federal regulations, including current OSHA
excavation and trench safety standards. Temporary excavation cuts should be sloped at inclinations of
1.5H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) or flatter, unless the contractor can demonstrate the safety of steeper cut
slopes. Permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined at 2H:1V, or flatter. Erosion control measures
should be implemented on all temporary and permanent cut or fill slopes immediately after grading.
A qualified geotechnical engineer and materials testing firm should be retained during the construction
phase of the project to observe earthwork operations and to perform necessary tests and observations
during subgrade preparation, placement and compaction of structural fill, and backfilling of excavations.
Foundations
Foundations can be placed on native subgrade soils or on a zone of structural fill above prepared
subgrades as described in this report. The following recommendations are for conventional spread
footing foundations:
Page 301 of 380
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report SSGC
The Summit at Kendall Ridge (formerly Mitchell Auburn Plat)
132nd Avenue East
Auburn, Washington
SSGC Project No. 18011
April 3, 2019
7
Bearing Capacity (net allowable): 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for footings
supported on firm native subgrades or structural fill
prepared as described in this report.
Footing Width (Minimum): 18 inches (Strip)
24 inches (Column)
Embedment Depth (Minimum): 18 inches (Exterior)
12 inches (Interior)
Settlement: Total: < 1 inch
Differential: < 1/2 inch (over 30 feet)
Allowable Lateral Passive Resistance: 325 psf/ft* (below 12 inches)
Allowable Coefficient of Friction: 0.35*
*These values include a factor of safety of approximately 1.5.
The net allowable bearing pressures presented above may be increased by one-third to resist transient,
dynamic loads such as wind or seismic forces. Lateral resistance to footings should be ignored in the
upper 12-inches from exterior finish grade unless restricted.
Foundation Construction Considerations
All foundation subgrades should be free of water and loose soil prior to placing concrete, and
should be prepared as recommended in this report. Concrete should be placed soon after
excavating and compaction to reduce disturbance to bearing soils. Should soils at foundation
level become excessively dry, disturbed, saturated, or frozen, the affected soil should be removed
prior to placing concrete. We recommend SSGC observe all foundation subgrades prior to
placement of concrete.
Foundation Drainage
Ground surface adjacent foundations should be sloped away to facilitate drainage. We recommend
footing drains are installed around perimeter footings. Footing drains should include a minimum 4-
inch diameter perforated rigid plastic or metal drain line installed along the exterior base of the
footing. The perforated drain lines should be connected to a tight line pipe that discharges to an
approved storm drain receptor. The drain line should be surrounded by a zone of clean, free-draining
granular material having less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve or meeting the requirements of
section 9-03.12(2) “Gravel Backfill for Walls” in the 2018 WSDOT Standard Specifications for
Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction manual (M41-10). The free-draining aggregate zone
should be at least 12 inches wide and wrapped in filter fabric. The granular fill should extend to
within 6 inches of final grade where it should be capped with compacted fill containing sufficient
fines to reduce infiltration of surface water into the footing drains. Alternately, the ground surface
Page 302 of 380
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report SSGC
The Summit at Kendall Ridge (formerly Mitchell Auburn Plat)
132nd Avenue East
Auburn, Washington
SSGC Project No. 18011
April 3, 2019
8
can be paved with asphalt or concrete. Cleanouts are recommended for maintenance of the drain
system.
On-Grade Floor Slabs
On-grade floor slabs should be placed on native soils or structural fill prepared as described in this report.
We recommend a modulus subgrade reaction of 200 pounds per square inch per inch (psi/in) for upper
native soil or compacted granular structural fill over properly prepared native soil. An increased subgrade
reaction of 250 (psi/in) can be used for slabs placed on dense glacial till.
We recommend a capillary break is provided between the prepared subgrade and bottom of slab.
Capillary break material should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and consist of compacted clean, free-
draining, well graded course sand and gravel. The capillary break material should contain less than 5
percent fines, based on that soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 4 sieve. Alternatively, a clean angular
gravel such as No. 7 aggregate per Section 9-03.1(4) C of the 2018 WSDOT (M41-10) manual could be
used for this purpose.
We recommend positive separations and/or isolation joints are provided between slabs and foundations,
and columns or utility lines to allow independent movement where needed. Backfill in interior trenches
beneath slabs should be compacted in accordance with recommendations presented in this report.
A vapor retarder should be considered beneath concrete slabs that will be covered with moisture sensitive
or impervious coverings (such as tile, wood, etc.), or when the slab will support equipment or stored
materials sensitive to moisture. We recommend the slab designer refer to ACI 302 and/or ACI 360 for
procedures and limitations regarding the use and placement of vapor retarders.
Lateral Earth Pressures
Below grade and retaining walls will be subject to lateral earth pressures. Subgrade walls are typically
designed for “active” or “at-rest” earth pressure conditions. Active earth pressure is commonly used for
design of free-standing cantilever retaining walls and assumes lateral movement at the top of the wall of
around 0.002H to 0.004H, where H is the height of the wall. The at-rest condition assumes no wall
movement.
The following recommended earth pressures (Table 2) should be applied as a triangular distribution
starting at the top of the wall (for active and at-rest) and bottom of wall (for passive) and assume:
Backfill behind walls is level and no surcharge loads will be applied;
Drainage is provided behind the wall to prevent the development of hydrostatic pressures.
Page 303 of 380
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report SSGC
The Summit at Kendall Ridge (formerly Mitchell Auburn Plat)
132nd Avenue East
Auburn, Washington
SSGC Project No. 18011
April 3, 2019
9
Table 2. Lateral Earth Pressures
Soil Type Earth Pressure
Coefficient*
Equivalent Fluid
Pressure (pcf)*
Native Upper Sand
Active: 0.33
At-rest: 0.50
Passive: 3.00
Active: 35
At-rest: 50
Passive: 300
Native Glacial Till
Active: 0.28
At-rest: 0.44
Passive: 3.50
Active: 30
At-rest: 45
Passive: 350
* A factor of safety of about 1.5 should be applied to these values.
Additional lateral pressure should be added to these values to model surcharges such as sloped backfill,
traffic, construction, or seismic loads. We recommend an active seismic pressure of 5H psf (where H is
the height of the subgrade wall) and an at-rest seismic pressure of 8H. The effects of other surcharge
loads should be accounted for as appropriate.
Wall Backfill
Backfill behind the drainage zone should consist of granular material that satisfies the criteria of
Section 9-03.12(2) “Gravel Backfill for Walls” per the 2018 WSDOT Publication M 41-10, or as
approved by the engineer.
Backfill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches and compacted with hand-operated
compaction equipment. Compaction of wall backfill should be between 90 to 92 percent of the
maximum dry density (MDD) per the ASTM D1557 test method within 3 feet of the back of the
wall to limit additional lateral pressures. At a distance greater than 3 feet behind the back of the
wall, backfill can be compacted using conventional rollers, with backfill compacted to at least 92
percent of the MDD (ASTM D1557).
Seismic Considerations
Seismic parameters and values in Table 3 are based on the 2015 International Building Code (IBC).
Page 304 of 380
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report SSGC
The Summit at Kendall Ridge (formerly Mitchell Auburn Plat)
132nd Avenue East
Auburn, Washington
SSGC Project No. 18011
April 3, 2019
10
Table 3. Seismic Parameters
PARAMETER VALUE
2015 International Building Code (IBC)
Site Classification1 D
Ss Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 1.252
S1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.475g
Fa Site Coefficient for a Short Period 1.00
Fv Site Coefficient for a 1-Second Period 1.525
1 Note: In general accordance with 2015 International Building Code, Section 1613.3.1 for risk categories
I,II,III. IBC Site Class is based on estimated characteristics of the upper 100 feet of the subsurface profile. Ss,
S1, Fa, and Fv values based on the USGS US Seismic Design Maps website using referenced site latitude and
longitude.
Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is a condition where loose, typically granular soils located below the
groundwater surface lose strength during ground shaking, and is often associated with
earthquakes. The King County “Liquefaction Susceptibility” map (Map 11-5) shows the property
in an area with low susceptibility to liquefaction. Native soils at fairly shallow depth consists of
dense to very dense glacial till. The risk of liquefaction at this site is considered low for the
design level earthquake.
Infiltration Characteristics
Infiltration to control stormwater will be difficult at this site due to the presence of glacial till at shallow
depths. Assessment of infiltration was completed in conformance with per the 2014 DOE Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washington. Two small-scale Pilot Infiltration Tests (PIT) were
completed in the upper 2 feet of soils on the site. Results of the infiltration tests are provided in Table 3.
Table 3. Infiltration Rates
Test Site and
Depth (in) Soil Type Field Infiltration Rate
(in/hr)
Corrected
Infiltration
Rate
(in/hr)
Correction
Factors*
(CFv/CFt/CFm)
PIT-1, 16 in Alluvium N/A N/A (0.5/0.5/0.9)
PIT-2, 22 in Alluvium 1.0 0.22 (0.5/0.5/0.9)
*Correction Factors from the 2014 WDOE Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.
No measurable infiltration was observed at the PIT-1 site. A field rate of about 1 inch per hour (in/hr)
was obtained at the PIT-2 site. Field rates demonstrate variableness of infiltration in the alluvial soils
Page 305 of 380
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report SSGC
The Summit at Kendall Ridge (formerly Mitchell Auburn Plat)
132nd Avenue East
Auburn, Washington
SSGC Project No. 18011
April 3, 2019
11
above glacial till and are considered appropriate for the soil tested. Infiltration is not considered feasible
in denser glacial till. We understand stormwater control for the development will be handled with the two
detention ponds planned. We concur that detention is a more viable approach based on the variability of
infiltration in the upper soils and presence of impermeable glacial till.
Conventional Pavement Sections
Subgrades for conventional pavement areas should be prepared as described in the “Subgrade
Preparation” section of this report. Subgrades below pavement sections should be graded or crowned to
promote drainage and not allow for ponding of water beneath the section. If drainage is not provided and
ponding occurs, the subgrade soils could become saturated, lose strength, and result in premature distress
to the pavement. In addition, the pavement surfacing should also be graded to promote drainage and
reduce the potential for ponding of water on the pavement surface.
Minimum recommended pavement sections for conventional pavements are presented in Table 5.
Pavement sections in public right-of-ways should conform to City of Auburn requirements for the road
designation.
Table 5. Preliminary Pavement Sections
Traffic Area
Minimum Recommended Pavement Section Thickness (inches)
Asphalt
Concrete
Surface1
Portland
Cement
Concrete2
Aggregate
Base
Course3,4
Subbase
Aggregate5
Access Drive 3 - 6 12
Parking 2 - 4 12
1 1/2 –inch nominal aggregate hot-mix asphalt (HMA) per WSDOT 9-03.8(1)
2 A 28 day minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi and an allowable flexural strength of at least 250
psi
3 Crushed Surfacing Base Course per WSDOT 9-03.9(3)
4Although not required for structural support under concrete pavements, a minimum four-inch thick base
course layer is recommended to help reduce potentials for slab curl, shrinkage cracking, and subgrade
“pumping” through joints
5 Native granular soils compacted to 95% of the ASTM D1557 test method, or Gravel Borrow per
WSDOT 9-03.14(1) or Crushed Surfacing Base Course WSDOT 9-03.9(3)
Conventional Pavement Maintenance
The performance and lifespan of pavements can be significantly impacted by future maintenance.
The above pavement sections represent minimum recommended thicknesses and, as such, periodic
maintenance should be completed. Proper maintenance will slow the rate of pavement
deterioration, and will improve pavement performance and life. Preventative maintenance consists
of both localized maintenance (crack and joint sealing and patching) and global maintenance
(surface sealing). Added maintenance measures should be anticipated over the lifetime of the
Page 306 of 380
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report SSGC
The Summit at Kendall Ridge (formerly Mitchell Auburn Plat)
132nd Avenue East
Auburn, Washington
SSGC Project No. 18011
April 3, 2019
12
pavement section if any existing fill, topsoil, or other deleterious materials are left in-place beneath
pavement sections.
Critical Areas
Slopes in the southeast portion of the property and along the east property boundary extending onto the
SR 18 easement would be classified as a Moderate Hazard (Class II) per Title 16 of the Auburn City Code
(ACC). Slopes have average inclinations between 20 to 40 percent based on topography presented on
provided plans. The steeper slopes are in the southeast portion.
Test pits on the site indicate underlying native soils consist of firm glacial till. Steeper slopes comprised
of glacial till are most often subject to shallow surface slides. Deeper seated slides are not as common.
Evidence of recent or historic landslides was not observed on site or SR 18 slopes. Slopes in the SR 18
right-of-way appear to have been graded to fairly uniform inclinations. We are unaware of any known
landslides within 300 feet of the site.
Foundations for residences in proposed lots 14 through 17 along the east side of the development will be
adjacent (or on) slopes averaging about 20 to 25 percent. Daylight basement type foundations would be
conducive on these lots to utilize sloped conditions. Foundations should extend to dense, undisturbed
glacial till. Foundation excavations and any fill placement could be completed using benched cut and fill
procedures that would not adversely impact adjacent native slope soils. We recommend a buffer of at
least 15 feet for building foundations from the face of native site slopes of 20 to 25 percent. Buffers
should be covered with landscaped lawn or native vegetation.
Plans show part of the proposed southeast pond would extend onto steeper slopes in this portion of the
site. The base elevation of the pond is proposed at 460 feet. The pond will be lined to prevent water from
entering native soils. A test pit completed by SSGC in this area (TP-4 in SSGC’s April 2018 report)
extended to a depth below the planned pond elevation with no groundwater (or indicators of seasonal
perched groundwater) observed. Soils below a depth of about 2 feet in the test pit consisted of firm
glacial till.
Due to the presence of dense till in the proposed southeast pond area, and comprising the adjacent native
slope, construction of the pond is considered feasible and should not adversely affect stability of the
native slope provided the pond is lined with a synthetic liner and constructed in a benched cut and fill
method. The base of exterior side-slopes for the pond should extend into dense glacial till. We
recommend a keyway is provided at the base of the pond slope and extend into dense till. The keyway
should extend at least 3 feet below the base of the fill slope design elevation and have a minimum width
of 4 feet. Embankment pond fill should be placed in benched lifts of no greater than 2 feet high and have
sufficient width to accommodate a minimum 10 ton vibratory roller. All fill in pond embankments should
be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density per the ASTM D1557 test method
in accordance with the Structural Fill section of this report.
Page 307 of 380
Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report SSGC
The Summit at Kendall Ridge (formerly Mitchell Auburn Plat)
132nd Avenue East
Auburn, Washington
SSGC Project No. 18011
April 3, 2019
13
Glacial till (Alderwood) soils are considered a Critical Erosion Hazard on slopes of 15 percent or greater
in the ACC. Slopes along the eastern boundary and SR18 easement satisfy this City’s designation.
Evidence of excessive erosion was not observed on site slopes at the time of our field evaluation. Upper
slope soils are generally in a looser condition and are more susceptible to erosion than the lower dense
till.
The planned development will require local clearing and excavation near, and on the upper portions of the
east-facing slope. It is our opinion that Best Management Practices (BMP) for erosion control (silt
fencing, straw bales, etc) can be utilized such that the risk of off-site transport of sediment is limited
during construction on this site. Additional erosion control measures may be necessary if earthwork is
scheduled during the wetter seasons. All temporary and permanent erosion control provisions should be in
compliance with City of Auburn regulations to reduce the risk of off-site transport of sediment. Exposed
soils following any excavation on or near slopes should be covered with erosion matting and/or vegetated
as soon as possible. Irrigation should not be allowed on or near site slopes. Temporary and permanent
stormwater control measures should prevent concentrated flow onto site slopes.
An emergency over-land flow pipe is proposed to extend from the southeast pond downslope (to the east)
onto the SR 18 right-of-way. Construction of this pipe will extend through the erosion hazard area.
However, this pipe line is considered feasible provided proper construction techniques are followed.
Clearing of vegetation should be limited to allowing only necessary equipment access. Support elements
for the pipe should extend at least 2 feet into dense glacial till.
REPORT CONDITIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mitchell Development, LLC for specific
application to the project discussed, and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering practices in the area. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or
made. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based on observed soil conditions
and test results at the indicated locations, and from other geologic information discussed. This report
does not reflect variations that may occur across the site, or due to the modifying effects of construction
or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after
construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and
supplemental recommendations can be provided.
This report was prepared for the planned type of development of the site as discussed herein. It is not
valid for third party entities or alternate types of development on the site without the express written
consent of SSGC. If development plans change we should be notified to review those changes and modify
our recommendations as necessary. The scope of services for this project does not include any
environmental or biological assessment of the site including identification or prevention of pollutants,
Page 308 of 380
Attachments not included in Hearing Examiner Packet.
Page 309 of 380
Civil Engineers ● Structural Engineers ● Landscape Architects ● Community Planners ● Land Surveyors
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
PREPARED FOR:
Phil Mitchell
Mitchell Development, LLC
910 Traffic Avenue
Sumner, WA 98390
PROJECT:
The Summit at Kendall Ridge
Auburn, WA
2170933.10
PREPARED BY:
Tyler D. Watkins, EIT
Project Engineer
REVIEWED BY:
Scott T. Kaul, PE, LEED AP
Project Manager
J. Matthew Weber, PE
Principal
DATE
May 2018
Revised April 2019
Revised August 2019
Revised September 2019
Revised October 2019
EXHIBIT 11
Page 310 of 380
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
PREPARED FOR:
Phil Mitchell
Mitchell Development, LLC
910 Traffic Avenue
Sumner, WA 98390
PROJECT:
The Summit at Kendall Ridge
Auburn, WA
2170933.10
PREPARED BY:
Tyler D. Watkins, EIT
Project Engineer
REVIEWED BY:
Scott T. Kaul, PE, LEED AP
Project Manager
J. Matthew Weber, PE
Principal
DATE
May 2018
Revised April 2019
Revised August 2019
Revised September 2019
Revised October 2019
I hereby state that this Preliminary Storm
Drainage Report for The Summit at
Kendall Ridge has been prepared by me
or under my supervision and meets the
standard of care and expertise which is
usual and customary in this community
for professional engineers. I understand
that the City of Auburn does not and will
not assume liability for the sufficiency,
suitability, or performance of drainage
facilities prepared by me.
10/28/2019
Page 311 of 380
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
The Summit at Kendall Ridge
2170933.10
Table of Contents
Section Page
1.0 Project Overview............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Proposed Project Description .............................................................................................1
2.0 Summary of Minimum Requirements ..........................................................................................1
2.1 MR 1 – Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans....................................................................1
2.2 MR 2 - Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention........................................................1
2.3 MR 3 – Source Control of Pollution.....................................................................................2
2.4 MR 4 – Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls........................................2
2.5 MR 5 – Onsite Stormwater Management............................................................................2
2.6 MR 6 – Runoff Treatment ...................................................................................................3
2.7 MR 7 – Flow Control ...........................................................................................................3
2.8 MR 8 – Wetlands Protection ...............................................................................................3
2.9 MR 9 – Operation and Maintenance...................................................................................3
2.10 MR 10 – Offsite Analysis and Mitigation .............................................................................3
3.0 Existing Site Conditions................................................................................................................4
3.1 Offsite drainage to the property. .........................................................................................4
3.2 Creeks, lakes, ponds, wetlands, ravines, gullies, steep slopes, springs, and other
environmentally sensitive areas on or down gradient of the property.................................4
3.3 Are there any specific requirements included in a basin plan for the area? .......................4
3.4 Are there drains, channels, and swales within the project site and immediately adjacent?4
3.5 Points of exit for existing drainage from the property..........................................................4
3.6 Are there any known historical drainage problems such as flooding, erosion, etc.? ..........4
4.0 Soils Reports..................................................................................................................................5
5.0 Wells and Septic Systems.............................................................................................................5
6.0 Fuel Tanks......................................................................................................................................5
7.0 Sub-Basin Description ..................................................................................................................5
8.0 Analysis of the 100-Year Flood.....................................................................................................7
9.0 Facility Sizing and Downstream Analysis...................................................................................7
9.1 Quality Control Facility Sizing .............................................................................................7
9.2 Quantity Control Facility Sizing...........................................................................................8
9.3 Conveyance System Calculations ......................................................................................8
Page 312 of 380
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
The Summit at Kendall Ridge
2170933.10
9.4 Offsite Analysis and Mitigation............................................................................................8
9.5 Onsite Stormwater Management ........................................................................................9
9.6 Wetland Protection............................................................................................................11
10.0 Utilities..........................................................................................................................................13
11.0 Covenants, Dedications, and Easements..................................................................................13
12.0 Property Owners Association Articles of Incorporation..........................................................14
13.0 Other Permits or Conditions Placed on the Project.................................................................14
14.0 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................14
Page 313 of 380
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
The Summit at Kendall Ridge
2170933.10
Appendices
Appendix A
Exhibits
A-1 .............Vicinity Map
A-2 .............Zoning Map
A-3 .............Critical Area Map
A-4 .............NRCS Soil Map
Appendix B
Preliminary Plat Set
Appendix C
Preliminary Stormwater Design Calculations
C-1 .............Predeveloped Basin Map
C-2 .............Developed Basin Map
C-3 .............Flow Control Calculations
C-4 .............Water Quality Calculations
C-5 .............Downstream Drainage Analysis
C-6 .............Threshold Discharge Area Tables
Appendix D
WWHM Reports
D-1 .............West Basin WWHM Report
D-2 .............East Basin WWHM Report
Appendix E
Geotechnical Report
Page 314 of 380
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
The Summit at Kendall Ridge 1
2170933.10
1.0 Project Overview
The Summit at Kendall Ridge project includes Tax Parcel Nos. 1021059095 and 1021059059.
The site address is 30440 132nd Avenue SE, which is located in a portion of Section 10, Township
21 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, King County, Washington. The overall site area is
4.50 acres. The site is currently bounded by the Kendall Ridge development to the south and
west, Highway 18 to the east, a single-family home to the north, and Raceway Mini Storage to the
northwest. The site is currently zoned as R5 Residential. The adjacent properties to the north,
south, and west are also zoned as R5 Residential. The adjacent property to the northwest is
zoned as C1 Light Commercial District. Highway 18 to the east is outside of the Auburn city
limits. Refer to Appendix A-1 for the Vicinity Map and Appendix A-2 for the Auburn Zoning Map.
This report demonstrates that the stormwater design for this project has met the requirements of
the 2014 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington
(SWMMWW), along with the 2017 City of Auburn Supplemental Manual to the Ecology
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Supplemental Manual).
1.1 Proposed Project Description
The proposed project involves construction of 17 single-family residences. Access to the
proposed lots will be provided off 133rd Avenue SE through the existing tract that was dedicated
during the Kendall Ridge development. The project proposes to construct two local public roads
ending in cul-de-sacs. The project includes erosion control; grading for the building pads;
surfacing for the roadway, sidewalk, and driveways; storm drainage facilities for treatment and
flow control; gravity sanitary sewer; and water and fire connections. Refer to the Preliminary Plat
Set attached as Appendix B.
2.0 Summary of Minimum Requirements
The site has less than 35 percent of existing impervious coverage; therefore, it is considered a
new development. This project proposes to add more than 5,000 square feet of new plus
replaced hard surfaces; therefore, Minimum Requirements (MRs) 1 through 10 apply.
In addition to the MRs, several low impact development principals were used, including:
Minimization of land disturbance by fitting development to the natural terrain. All lots are
proposed outside the wetland and associated buffer. Lots near the critical slope feature
daylight basements to minimize disturbance to the slope. The critical slope area to remain
unaltered is 0.839 acre, and the wetland area to remain unaltered is 0.633 acre,
Preservation of natural vegetation.
Locating impervious surfaces over less permeable soils.
Minimizing impervious surfaces.
The following is a summary of how the project will meet each of the MRs.
2.1 MR 1 – Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans
This report and the project plans represent the Stormwater Site Plan for this project and satisfy
MR 1.
2.2 MR 2 - Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention
A Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be included with the final
Storm Drainage Report.
Page 315 of 380
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
The Summit at Kendall Ridge 2
2170933.10
2.3 MR 3 – Source Control of Pollution
The proposed project is required to provide source control of pollution. Source controls are
required for automobile washing and maintenance, storage of solid waste and food waste,
composting, yard maintenance, household hazardous material use, and general home
maintenance. The required Best Management Practices (BMPs) are listed below:
Engine degreasing or washing of internal engine components is not permitted at home.
A commercial car wash must be used.
All oils, antifreeze, solvents, batteries, and household hazardous waste must be recycled at
local parts stores, gas stations, and the Household Hazardous Waste facility. Never dump
used fluid onto the ground. Label and separate wastes into separate containers.
Compost piles shall not be located on paved areas or areas that may pond during storms.
Do not apply pesticides herbicides, or fungicides when it is windy or when rain is expected.
Never dispose of grass clippings in or near storm drains, streams, lakes, or Puget Sound.
All pollutants, including waste materials and demolition debris created onsite during
construction, shall be handled and disposed of in a manner that does not cause
contamination of surface water.
Cover, containment, and protection from vandalism shall be provided for all chemicals,
liquid products, petroleum products, and non-inert wastes present on the site (see
Chapter 173-304 WAC for the definition of inert waste).
Maintenance and repair of heavy equipment and vehicles that may result in discharge or
spillage of pollutants to the ground or into surface water runoff must be conducted using
spill prevention measures such as drip pans.
2.4 MR 4 – Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls
There are no existing drainage systems onsite. The majority of stormwater runoff in the existing
conditions sheet flows to the east edge of the site and down the steep slope toward Highway 18
(east predeveloped sub-basin). The remainder of stormwater runoff sheet flows toward the west
side of the site into the existing wetland (west predeveloped sub-basin). Because of elevation
constraints near the existing wetland, runoff from the proposed roadways cannot be conveyed to
the west detention pond. As a result of the proposed development, the west sub-basin area will
decrease by approximately 0.762 acre, while the east sub-basin area will increase by
approximately 0.899 acre. The reason these numbers do not match is because the east
developed sub-basin also includes the future full width build-out of Road A, which is currently not
part of either sub-basin. Refer to Section 7.0 of this report for detailed descriptions of each sub-
basin.
This project proposes two separate detention facilities that are each sized to match predeveloped
flow characteristics for the tributary sub-basin. Flow control will be met for each of the separate
threshold discharge areas (see Section 9.2 of this report). Therefore, the natural drainage
characteristics for the site will be preserved in the developed conditions.
2.5 MR 5 – Onsite Stormwater Management
Because the project triggers MRs 1 through 10, and it is a new development on a parcel less than
5 acres, the LID performance standard, along with BMP T5.13, must be met, or onsite stormwater
management BMPs must be selected from List 2 per Table I-2.5-1 of the SWMMWW.
Page 316 of 380
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
The Summit at Kendall Ridge 3
2170933.10
The following Onsite Stormwater Management BMPs are applicable:
BMP T5.13: Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth
See Section 9.5 for the full analysis of potential BMPs for onsite stormwater management that
were determined to be infeasible.
2.6 MR 6 – Runoff Treatment
The project proposes to treat all runoff from pollution generating impervious surfaces (PGIS).
Because the project is only proposing single-family homes, basic treatment can be used per
Section V-2.1 of the SWMMWW. A modular wetland is proposed to treat all stormwater
discharge from the East Detention Vault up to the full 2-year release rate.
2.7 MR 7 – Flow Control
Flow control for the project will be met through the use of two separate detention facilities. Runoff
from 10 of the building roofs and the backyards of Lots 1 through 4 will discharge into the West
Detention Pond. The East Detention Vault will manage runoff from the remaining seven building
roofs, as well as all 17 driveways, all roads and sidewalks within the right-of-way (assuming a full
width buildout of Road A), both shared accesses, the gravel access road for the vault, the
emergency vehicle access road, the offsite portion of Road A that connects to 133rd Avenue SE,
and all of the onsite lawn and landscaped areas. The facilities were designed to match the
developed discharge durations to pre-developed durations for the range of pre-developed
discharge rates from 50 percent of the 2-year peak flow up to the full 50-year peak flow, thus
meeting the requirement stated in the SWMMWW.
2.8 MR 8 – Wetlands Protection
There is an existing Category III wetland located at the west side of the site. The onsite portion of
the wetland consists of approximately 15,507 square feet of wetland area, as well as a 25-foot
wetland buffer. The guidelines stated in Appendix I-D of the SWMMWW were followed closely to
ensure that any discharges to the wetland are compliant with Minimum Requirement 8. Refer to
Section 9.6 for a detailed description of how the project meets these guidelines.
The natural hydrology for the wetland will be maintained in the developed conditions through the
use of the West Detention Pond. Additionally, runoff from the backyards of Lots 1 through 4 will
sheet flow into the wetland to match predeveloped site characteristics.
Refer to the Wetland Delineation Report prepared by Theresa Dusek on June 24, 2019, for more
information on the existing wetland.
2.9 MR 9 – Operation and Maintenance
An Operations and Maintenance Manual will be prepared as required for this project.
2.10 MR 10 – Offsite Analysis and Mitigation
A qualitative analysis has been performed for all stormwater entering or leaving the site. The
analysis extends one-quarter mile downstream along the flow paths from both the west and the
east threshold discharge areas, and also includes stormwater entering the site from adjacent
properties. See Section 9.4 for a detailed description of the qualitative analysis.
Page 317 of 380
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
The Summit at Kendall Ridge 4
2170933.10
3.0 Existing Site Conditions
The existing 4.50-acre site is currently occupied by one single-family home and a gravel road for
access. The eastern portion of the site consists of dense trees and vegetation, and the western
portion of the site consists of scattered trees, with shrubs and grass throughout. The majority of
the slopes onsite range from 1 to 6 percent, with the exception of the steep slope to the east,
which ranges from 15 to 40 percent. The elevations onsite range from 480 near the center of the
property to 422 at the southeast corner. The site is currently bounded by the Kendall Ridge
development to the south and west, Highway 18 to the east, a single-family home to the north,
and Raceway Mini Storage to the northwest. Refer to Appendix B-2 for the Existing Features
Plan/Field Topography.
3.1 Offsite drainage to the property.
The existing offsite easement that provides access to the northwest corner of the property
includes a gravel roadway that slopes toward the wetland. The existing Kendall Ridge
development to the west is at a relatively higher elevation than the site. Runoff from the existing
gravel roadway, as well as the existing lots to the west of the wetland, currently discharges into
the wetland located onsite. The adjacent properties to the north and south, as well as Highway
18 to the east, are at relatively lower elevations than the site.
3.2 Creeks, lakes, ponds, wetlands, ravines, gullies, steep slopes, springs, and other
environmentally sensitive areas on or down gradient of the property.
There is an existing Category III wetland located at the west side of the site. The onsite portion of
the wetland consists of approximately 15,507 square feet of wetland area, as well as a 25-foot
wetland buffer. A steep slope exists along the east property line, which slopes between 15 and
40 percent away from the site, down toward Highway 18. Refer to Appendix A-3 for the Critical
Area Map.
3.3 Are there any specific requirements included in a basin plan for the area?
To our knowledge, there are no specific requirements included in a basin plan, other than the
general requirements of the SWMMWW.
3.4 Are there drains, channels, and swales within the project site and immediately adjacent?
To our knowledge, there are no drains, channels, or swales within the project site or immediately
adjacent.
3.5 Points of exit for existing drainage from the property.
There are no existing drainage systems onsite. The majority of stormwater runoff in the existing
conditions sheet flows to the east edge of the site and down the steep slope toward Highway 18.
The remainder of stormwater runoff sheet flows toward the west side of the site into the existing
wetland. Refer to Section 7.0 for the Sub-Basin Description.
3.6 Are there any known historical drainage problems such as flooding, erosion, etc.?
To our knowledge, there are no known historical drainage problems within the site or any areas
adjacent to the site.
Page 318 of 380
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
The Summit at Kendall Ridge 5
2170933.10
4.0 Soils Reports
The soils onsite were analyzed using the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web
Soil Survey. The majority of the site is mapped as Soil Type AgB - Alderwood Gravelly Sandy
Loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes. The steep slope on the east side of the site is mapped as Soil Type
AgD - Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam. These soils are noted to have very low to moderately
low infiltration rates within the range of 0 to 0.06 inch per hour at the most restrictive soil layer.
The limiting soil layer is noted to be between 20 and 39 inches below the existing grade, and the
depth to groundwater is noted to be between 18 and 37 inches below the existing grade. The soil
is recorded as hydrologic soil Group B, with no hydric soil rating. Refer to Appendix A-4 for the
NRCS Soil Map.
A Geotechnical Report was prepared by Tim Roberts with South Sound Geotechnical Consulting.
Several test pits were analyzed to determine the soil composition for the site. A layer of surface
topsoil was found in all of the test pits, ranging from a depth of 6 inches to 1 foot below existing
grade. Below the topsoil is a layer of silty sand/sandy silt extending to a depth of 2 feet below
existing grade. A layer of silty sand with gravel and variable clay was found beneath the upper
sand layers, extending to depths between 2 and 6 feet beneath existing grade. Glacial till
consisting of silty sand with gravel exists beneath this layer, extending to the bottom of the test
pits. Groundwater was found in the test pit located closest to the wetland at a depth of 3 feet
below existing grade. No groundwater was found in any of the other test pits. Infiltration to
control stormwater will be difficult at this site due to the presence of glacial till at shallow depths.
The west half of the site has no measurable infiltration. The east half of the site has a measured
rate of 1 inch per hour, with a recommended long-term infiltration rate of 0.1 inch per hour. The
recommended pavement section consists of 3 inches of HMA per WSDOT 9-03.8(1) over
6 inches of crushed surfacing base course per WSDOT 9-03.9(3). Subbase aggregate shall
consist of 12 inches of native granular soils compacted to 95% of the ASTM D1557 test method,
gravel borrow per WSDOT 9-03.14(1), or crushed surfacing base course per WSDOT 9-03.9(3).
Refer to Appendix E for the Geotechnical Report.
5.0 Wells and Septic Systems
To our knowledge, there are no wells or septic systems within the proposed project site or within
100 feet of stormwater facilities.
6.0 Fuel Tanks
To our knowledge, there are no existing underground fuel tanks on the site. If located during
construction, the fuel tanks will be abandoned according to State Department of Ecology
standards.
7.0 Sub-Basin Description
The predeveloped site consists of two sub-basins and two threshold discharge areas.
The west predeveloped sub-basin consists of 1.576 acres of onsite area and 1.898 acres of
offsite area. The offsite area includes the wetland and buffer, as well as 13 building roofs within
the adjacent Kendall Ridge development that currently discharge directly to the wetland per the
Kendall Ridge as-builts. The west predeveloped sub-basin was modeled as the current existing
conditions.
Page 319 of 380
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
The Summit at Kendall Ridge 6
2170933.10
The east predeveloped sub-basin consists of 2.085 acres of onsite area. Even though there are
existing impervious surfaces within the east predeveloped basin, it was modeled entirely as
C-Forested per the requirement stated in Volume 1, Chapter 2.5.7 of the SWMMWW, and
Appendix I-F, Volume 1 of the City of Auburn Supplemental Manual to the SWMMWW. The east
predeveloped sub-basin area was modeled as one-third flat slopes, one-third moderate slopes,
and one-third steep slopes.
See the table below for a summary of the predeveloped sub-basins. The highlighted values in
the table represent Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM) basin inputs. Refer to
Appendix C-1 for the Predeveloped Basin Map.
Basin Surface Type Model Input Area (SF)Are a (ac)
We st On-Site Pe rvi ous C Pasture 68,659 1.576
Pe rvi ous C Pasture 42,484 0.975
Roof 33,600 0.771
Grave l Dri veway 6,625 0.152
Pe rvi ous C Pasture 111,143 2.551
Impe rvi ous Roof and Drive way 40,225 0.923
Total 151,368 3.475
East Basi n Total (All On-Site)Pe rvi ous C Fore ste d 90,803 2.085
Prede vel ope d Si te
West Basin Total
West Off -Si te Impe rvi ous
The developed site consists of two sub-basins and two threshold discharge areas.
The west developed sub-basin area is 2.7134 acres. The total area tributary to the West
Detention Pond is 0.4685 acre, with 2.2449 acres modeled as pond bypass. The west sub-basin
consists of ten of the onsite building roofs (each assumed to be 1,800 square feet), the backyards
of Lots 1 through 4, the maximum water surface area of the West Detention Pond, the onsite
portion of wetland and buffer, 13 offsite roofs from Kendall Ridge, and the offsite portion of
wetland and buffer. Runoff from all proposed roads, sidewalks, and driveways will be collected in
the conveyance system that discharges into the east detention vault, so these areas are not
included the west sub-basin. The point of compliance for the west sub-basin is at the outlet of the
wetland to ensure that the natural hydrology of the wetland is maintained.
The east developed sub-basin area is 2.9832 acres. The east sub-basin consists of seven of the
onsite building roofs (each assumed to be 1,800 square feet), all 17 driveways, all roads and
sidewalks within the right-of-way (assuming a full width buildout of Road A), both shared
accesses, the gravel access road for the vault, the emergency vehicle access road, the offsite
portion of Road A that connects to 133rd Avenue SE, and all the onsite lawn and landscaped
areas. The sloped area along the east edge of the site was excluded because it is not within the
project area. The point of compliance for the east sub-basin is at the outlet of the proposed
detention vault.
See the table below for a summary of the developed sub-basins. The highlighted values in the
table represent WWHM basin inputs. Refer to Appendix C-2 for the Developed Basin Map.
Page 320 of 380
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
The Summit at Kendall Ridge 7
2170933.10
Basi n Surf ace Type Mode l Input Area (SF)Area (ac)
C Pasture 27,578 0.6331
A/B Lawn 9,183 0.2108
Pond 2,409 0.0553
Roof 18,000 0.4132
Pervious C Pasture 27,425 0.6296
Impervious Roof 33,600 0.7713
C Pasture (bypass)55,003 1.2627
A/B Lawn (bypass)9,183 0.2108
Pond 2,409 0.0553
Roof 18,000 0.4132
Roof (bypass)33,600 0.7713
Total 118,195 2.7134
Pervious A/B Lawn 46,079 1.0578
Roof 12,600 0.2893
Roads/Si dewal ks/Dri ve ways 43,624 1.0015
A/B Lawn 2,066 0.0474
Future A/B Lawn 3,360 0.0771
Roads/Si dewal ks 7,279 0.1671
Future Road/sidewal k 4,661 0.1070
Gravel Dri veways 10,281 0.2360
Pervious A/B Lawn 51,505 1.1824
Roof 12,600 0.2893
Roads/si de walks/drive ways 65,845 1.5116
Total 129,950 2.9832
Impervious
Impervious
ImperviousEast Basi n Of f -Site
Pervious
ImperviousWest On-Site
Pervious
Pervious
We st Basi n Total
East Basin Total
Impervious
West Off-Si te
East Basin On-Si te
De veloped Si te
Refer to Appendix C-6 for the Threshold Discharge Area Tables required by the City of Auburn.
8.0 Analysis of the 100-Year Flood
According to the FEMA Flood Map Service Center, there is no flood map printed for the site
location. However, King County iMaps shows the site to be located outside of the 100-year and
500-year floodplains. Refer to Appendix A-3 for the Critical Area Map.
9.0 Facility Sizing and Downstream Analysis
9.1 Quality Control Facility Sizing
The project proposes to treat all runoff from pollution generating impervious surfaces (PGIS).
Because the project is only proposing single-family homes, basic treatment can be used per
Section V-2.1 of the SWMMWW. A modular wetland is proposed to treat all stormwater
discharge from the East Detention Vault up to the full 2-year release rate, meeting the
requirement stated in Volume 5, Section 4.1.2 of the SWMMWW. The 2-year release rate from
the vault is 0.0453 cfs. The modular wetland (MWS-L-4-6.33-8’-0”-V-UG) has a capacity of
0.07 cfs. The unit features an internal bypass system, which can handle flows up to the 100-year
peak flow into the detention vault (1.50 cfs), in the worst-case event that the control structure
orifices become plugged during the 100-year peak flow.
Refer to Appendix C-4 for the Water Quality Calculations. The East Basin WWHM Report is
attached as Appendix D-2.
Page 321 of 380
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
The Summit at Kendall Ridge 8
2170933.10
9.2 Quantity Control Facility Sizing
Flow control for the project will be met through the use of two separate detention facilities. Runoff
from 10 of the building roofs and the backyards of Lots 1 through 4 will discharge into the West
Detention Pond. The East Detention Vault will manage runoff from the remaining seven building
roofs, as well as all 17 driveways, all roads and sidewalks within the right-of-way (assuming a full
width buildout of Road A), both shared accesses, the gravel access road for the vault, the
emergency vehicle access road, the offsite portion of Road A that connects to 133rd Avenue SE,
and all of the onsite lawn and landscaped areas. The facilities were designed to match the
developed discharge durations to pre-developed durations for the range of pre-developed
discharge rates from 50 percent of the 2-year peak flow up to the full 50-year peak flow, thus
meeting the requirement stated in the SWMMWW.
The point of compliance for the west sub-basin is at the outlet of the wetland to ensure that the
natural hydrology of the wetland is maintained. Refer to the screenshot below for a summary of
the predeveloped and developed peak flows through the west sub-basin point of compliance.
The point of compliance for the east sub-basin is at the outlet of the proposed detention vault.
Refer to the screenshot below for a summary of the predeveloped and developed peak flows
through the east point of compliance.
Refer to Appendix C-3 for the Flow Control Calculations. The WWHM Reports are attached as
Appendix D.
9.3 Conveyance System Calculations
The proposed conveyance system will meet the requirements stated in the SWMMWW. A
conveyance analysis will be included with the final Storm Drainage Report.
9.4 Offsite Analysis and Mitigation
A qualitative analysis has been performed for all stormwater entering or leaving the site. The
analysis extends at least one-quarter mile downstream along each flow path and also includes
stormwater entering the site from adjacent properties. A site visit was conducted on October 24,
2019. There were no signs of existing drainage problems or erosion throughout the site or within
the downstream conveyance system.
Page 322 of 380
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
The Summit at Kendall Ridge 9
2170933.10
Stormwater runoff from the west sub-basin will discharge from the West Detention Pond control
structure into the existing wetland onsite through a gravel dispersion trench. Runoff from the
wetland discharges north into an existing culvert that flows into the Raceway Mini Storage storm
system to the northwest. The conveyance and drainage facilities for Raceway Mini Storage were
designed to account for stormwater runoff from the wetland because the site is the natural
discharge point for the wetland. Peak flows tributary to this conveyance system will decrease in
the developed conditions because flow control will be provided using the west detention pond.
Runoff flows to the north through the Raceway Mini Storage Site and discharges into a
detention/water quality pond near the intersection of 132nd Avenue SE and SE 304th Street.
Runoff from the pond discharges through a 24-inch ADS pipe below SE 304th Street. The 24-inch
pipe discharges into a grassy field, which sheet flows about 600 feet to the northwest. Runoff
from the grassy field is intercepted through a reinforced concrete culvert that flows under SE 301st
Street. The culvert discharges into a ditch at a distance of 0.416 mile from the site. From here,
runoff flows through a series of existing roadside ditches and storm pipes, which discharge into
Soosette Creek, Big Soos Creek, the Green River, and ultimately into Puget Sound.
Stormwater runoff from the east sub-basin will discharge from the East Detention Vault control
structure and modular wetland down the steep slope through an overland pipe and energy
dissipator into an existing ditch that flows south along the west side of Highway 18. From here,
runoff will be intercepted by an existing catch basin and drainage pipe that runs to the east below
Highway 18, which discharges into Big Soos Creek at a distance of 0.336 mile from the site
before discharging into the Green River and ultimately into Puget Sound.
Refer to Appendix C-5 for the Downstream Drainage Analysis.
9.5 Onsite Stormwater Management
Because the project triggers MRs 1 through 10, and it is a new development on a parcel less than
5 acres, the LID performance standard, along with BMP T5.13, must be met, or onsite stormwater
management BMPs must be selected from List 2 per Table I-2.5-1 of the SWMMWW.
We have selected the list approach to demonstrate compliance with MR 5. We have reviewed
List 2 and determined the following onsite stormwater management BMPs to be infeasible:
Lawn and Landscaped Areas
BMP T5.13: Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth will be implemented for all disturbed lawn
and landscaped areas.
Roofs
The combined total of roof area for the 17 proposed single-family homes is approximately
30,600 square feet.
1. Either:
a. BMP T5.30: Full Dispersion is not feasible because the ratio of native vegetation to
impervious area is less than 65 to 10, and the minimum vegetated flow path for each
roof is less than 100 feet.
b. BMP T5.10A: Downspout Full Infiltration is not feasible due to the lack of outwash or
loam soils within the site. The geotechnical report notes that all the test pits contain
silty sand and sandy silt with some clay underlain with glacial till at shallow depths,
with the exception of TP-4 that contains silty sand with gravel. However, TP-4
contains glacial till at a depth of 2 feet. Because there were no outwash or loam soils
found onsite, Downspout Full Infiltration is considered infeasible per Section III-3.1.1
of the SWMMWW. Refer to Appendix E for the Geotechnical Report.
Page 323 of 380
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
The Summit at Kendall Ridge 10
2170933.10
2. BMP T7.30: Bioretention is not feasible due to the poor infiltration rates of the onsite soils
and the inability to meet the setback criteria from slopes that are greater than 20 percent.
The area near the west detention pond has no measurable infiltration. Because the native
soil infiltration rate in this area is less than the minimum rate of 0.30 inch per hour,
bioretention is considered infeasible per Section V-7.4 of the SWMMWW. The measured
infiltration rate near the east detention vault is 1 inch per hour, as shown on page 10 of the
Geotechnical Report found in Appendix E. This area meets the minimum measured
infiltration rate of 0.30 inch per hour. However, there is insufficient area to meet the 50-foot
required setback from the top of slopes greater than 20 percent stated in Section V-7.4 of
the SWMMWW.
3. BMP T5.10B: Downspout Dispersion Systems are not feasible for the site because there is
not enough area within each lot to provide a 25-foot vegetated flow path between the
trench outlet and any property line, structure, wetland, or impervious surface, as described
in the design criteria in Section III-3.1.2 of the SWMMWW. These systems are not feasible
for Lots 14 through 17 because a 50-foot vegetated flow path cannot be maintained
between the trench outlet and the top of slopes greater than 15 percent. Refer to
Sheet C2.0 of Appendix B for the Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan.
4. BMP T5.10C: Perforated Stub-Out Connections are feasible for each lot. The trenches
cannot be placed below driveways or other impervious surfaces. The trenches must be
placed in the front yards of each lot to avoid drainage issues in the rear yards. Refer to
Sheet C2.0 of Appendix B for the Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan.
Other Hard Surfaces
The combined total of new/replaced impervious surface area, excluding the roof and pond areas,
is approximately 1.5116 acres.
1. BMP T5.30: Full Dispersion is not feasible because the ratio of native vegetation to
impervious area is less than 65 to 10, and there is insufficient area for the 100-foot
minimum vegetated flow path.
2. BMP T5.15: Permeable Pavement is not feasible due to the poor infiltration rates of the
onsite soils. The area near the west detention pond has no measurable infiltration.
Because the native soil infiltration rate in this area is less than the minimum rate of
0.30 inch per hour, permeable pavement is considered infeasible per Section V-5.3.1 of the
SWMMWW. The measured infiltration rate near the east detention vault is 1 inch per hour,
as shown on page 10 of the Geotechnical Report found in Appendix E. This area meets
the minimum measured infiltration rate of 0.30 inch per hour. However, infiltration in this
area is not feasible because it would direct groundwater toward the below grade
basements and steep slope to the east. A large portion of the site contains glacial till at
shallow depths. Page 11 of the Geotechnical Report notes that infiltration is not considered
feasible in areas containing denser glacial till. Additionally, there are some areas on the
site where impervious surfaces are proposed over fill soils. Permeable pavement is
infeasible near these locations because the fill soils can become unstable when saturated.
3. BMP T7.30: Bioretention is not feasible due to the poor infiltration rates of the onsite soils
and the inability to meet the setback criteria from slopes that are greater than 20 percent.
The area near the west detention pond has no measurable infiltration. Because the native
soil infiltration rate in this area is less than minimum rate of 0.30 inch per hour, bioretention
is considered infeasible per Section V-7.4 of the SWMMWW. The measured infiltration rate
near the east detention vault is 1 inch per hour, as shown on page 10 of the Geotechnical
Report found in Appendix E. This area meets the minimum measured infiltration rate of
0.30 inch per hour. However, there is insufficient area to meet the 50-foot required setback
from the top of slopes greater than 20 percent stated in Section V-7.4 of the SWMMWW.
Page 324 of 380
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
The Summit at Kendall Ridge 11
2170933.10
4. Either
a. BMP T5.12: Sheet Flow Dispersion is not feasible for the site. There is insufficient
space on each lot to provide a 10-foot vegetated flow path per every 20 feet of
contributing flow path. Figure V-5.3.2 of the SWMMWW shows that the dispersion
must be set back 25 feet from the right-of-way line. However, the minimum driveway
setback is 20 feet, so meeting the 25-foot setback is not possible. Refer to
Sheet C2.0 of Appendix B for the Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan.
b. BMP T5.11: Concentrated Flow Dispersion is not feasible due to the layout of roads
and driveways. A vegetative flow path of 50 feet cannot be met between the trench
outlet and any property line, structure, stream, wetland, or impervious surface. Refer
to Sheet C2.0 of Appendix B for the Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan.
Stormwater runoff characteristics in the developed conditions are anticipated to be similar to the
existing conditions. There are no known flooding or erosion problems; therefore, we do not
anticipate any future problems related to this project based on the stormwater management
design.
9.6 Wetland Protection
There is an existing Category III wetland located at the west side of the site. The onsite portion of
the wetland consists of approximately 15,507 square feet of wetland area, as well as a 25-foot
wetland buffer. The guidelines stated in Appendix I-D of the SWMMWW were followed closely to
ensure that any discharges to the wetland are compliant with Minimum Requirement 8.
Because the wetland is not classified as Category I or II, and it does not provide a habitat for
threatened or endangered species per the Wetland Delineation Report, the wetland does not
meet any of the criteria in Guide Sheet 1: Criteria that excludes wetlands from serving as a
treatment or flow control BMP/facility. Therefore, the wetland can receive flows from a
stormwater system without meeting the criteria in Guide Sheets 3B and 3C.
The wetland meets all of the criteria listed in Guide Sheet 2. Therefore, the wetland can be
altered to meet the requirements of a treatment or flow control BMP/facility. A summary
describing how all of the criteria are met is shown below:
Guide Sheet 2: Criteria for including wetlands as a treatment or flow control BMP/facility
1. The wetland is classified as Category III with a habitat score of 19 points or less.
2. There will be no net loss of functions or values of the wetland as a result of structural or
hydrologic modifications. There will be no construction or grading within the wetland, so
there will be no heavy equipment operating within the wetland. Stormwater runoff from the
developed site flowing through the wetland will match the predeveloped durations,
maintaining the natural hydrology for the entire wetland basin.
a. There will be no modification of the structure of the wetland or its soils.
b. The storage capacity of the wetland will not be altered. The discharge pipe will
remain at the existing elevation. The wetland does not provide any storage for
stormwater leaving the site because the flow control requirements are met through
the use of the West Detention Pond prior to discharging to the wetland.
3. The wetland does not contain a breeding population of any native amphibian species.
Page 325 of 380
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
The Summit at Kendall Ridge 12
2170933.10
4. This criterion does not apply to the project because the existing site does not contain any
dikes or ditches, and there is no fill that can be removed to increase storage. Additionally,
the outlet culvert for the wetland will not be altered. Therefore, the hydrologic functions of
the wetland cannot be improved, as outlined in Questions 3, 4, and 5 of Chart 4 and
Questions 2, 3, and 4 of Chart 5 in the “Guide for Selecting Mitigation Sites Using a
Watershed Approach.”
5. The wetland lies in the natural routing of the runoff, and the discharge follows the natural
routing.
The wetland falls under Guide Sheet 2, so the guidance in Guide Sheet 3A needs to only be
applied as practical for the project. A summary describing how the criteria are met is shown
below:
Guide Sheet 3A: General guidance for protecting functions and values of wetlands
1. There will be no pollutants discharged into the wetland because the only areas tributary to
the wetland consist of building roofs and backyards.
2. The wetland buffer will be maintained.
3. Areas of native vegetation will be retained.
4. There will be no heavy equipment within the wetland and its buffer and soil compaction will
be avoided. There will be no exotic plant species introduced to the wetland.
5. Urban impacts will be avoided by protecting existing buffer zones and discouraging access
to the wetland.
6. Fencing will be used to restrict access to the wetland from the backyards of Lots 1 through
4, as well as the west detention pond. Wildlife in this area is relatively minor and the use of
a fence will not restrict the movement of smaller animals found near the wetland, such as
birds and mice.
7. A gravel dispersion trench will be used to discharge stormwater toward the wetland to
prevent flow channelization.
Guide Sheet 3B: Protecting wetlands from impacts of changes in water flows is not
required to be met because the wetland does not meet any of the criteria in Guide Sheet 1.
Guide Sheet 3C is also not required to be met because the wetland does not meet any of the
criteria in Guide Sheet 1. However, several of the criteria still apply to the project. A summary
describing how the criteria are met is shown below:
Guide Sheet 3C: Guidelines for protecting wetlands from pollutants
1. Effective erosion control measures will be applied to construction within the wetland’s
drainage catchment. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and site
development plans will be provided with the final Storm Drainage Report.
2. Source Control BMPs will be applied to the project during construction and after
construction is completed. Refer to Section 2.3 of this report for a summary of Source
Control BMPs that apply to this project.
Page 326 of 380
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
The Summit at Kendall Ridge 13
2170933.10
3. This criterion does not apply to the project because the wetland does not meet any of the
criteria in Guide Sheet 1. Additionally, there will be no runoff from PGIS discharging to the
wetland. All of the stormwater runoff in this sub-basin is from building roofs and the
backyards of Lots 1 through 4.
The natural hydrology for the wetland will be maintained in the developed conditions through the
use of the West Detention Pond. Additionally, runoff from the rear yards of Lots 1 through 4 will
sheet flow into the wetland to match the predeveloped site characteristics. The point of
compliance for the west sub-basin is at the outlet of the wetland to ensure that the natural
hydrology of the wetland is maintained. Refer to the screenshot below for a summary of the
predeveloped and developed peak flows through the west sub-basin point of compliance (refer to
Appendix D-1 for the full WWHM report).
Refer to the Wetland Delineation Report prepared by Theresa Dusek on June 24, 2019, for more
information on the existing wetland.
10.0 Utilities
Sanitary sewer, water, and fire connections will be provided to the site. Three fire hydrants will be
constructed to provide fire protection for the proposed lots. Dry utilities including communications
and power will also be provided to the site.
11.0 Covenants, Dedications, and Easements
There are no existing easements on the site; however, the following easements will be required:
A 10-foot private utility easement is required along the frontage of all proposed lots.
A 26.5-foot shared access/utility easement is proposed to provide sewer and water
connections to the site.
A 26.5-foot shared access/utility easement is proposed to extend utilities to Lots 12 through
15 and to provide access to the East Detention Vault.
12.0 Property Owners Association Articles of Incorporation
Not applicable.
13.0 Other Permits or Conditions Placed on the Project
The following permits are anticipated to be required for this project:
Site Development Permit.
Building Permit.
Side Sewer Permit.
Page 327 of 380
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
The Summit at Kendall Ridge 14
2170933.10
14.0 Conclusion
The proposed project involves construction of 17 single-family residences. Access to the
proposed lots will be provided off 133rd Avenue SE through the existing tract that was dedicated
during the Kendall Ridge development. The project proposes to construct two local public roads
ending in cul-de-sacs. The project includes erosion control; grading for the building pads;
surfacing for the roadway, sidewalk, and driveways; storm drainage facilities for treatment and
flow control; gravity sanitary sewer; and water and fire connections. If constructed per plans, the
stormwater system will manage the anticipated runoff volumes based on the design criteria of the
2014 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington
(SWMMWW), along with the 2017 City of Auburn Supplemental Manual to the Ecology
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. This report and associated plans
have been prepared within the guidelines established by the City of Auburn for stormwater
management.
This analysis is based on data and records either supplied to or obtained by AHBL, Inc. These
documents are referenced within the text of the analysis. The analysis has been prepared using
procedures and practices within the standard accepted practices of the industry. We conclude that this
project, as proposed, will not create any new problems within the existing downstream drainage system.
This project will not noticeably aggravate any existing downstream problems due to either water quality or
quantity.
AHBL, Inc.
Tyler D. Watkins, EIT
Project Engineer
TDW/lsk
May 2018
Revised April 2019
Revised August 2019
Revised September 2019
Revised October 2019
Q:\2017\2170933\WORDPROC\Reports\20191028 Rpt (Prelim Storm) 2170933.10.docx
Page 328 of 380
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
The Summit at Kendall Ridge
2170933.10
Appendix A
Exhibits
A-1....................Vicinity Map
A-2....................Zoning Map
A-3....................Critical Area Map
A-4....................NRCS Soil Map
Not included in Hearing Examiner Packet.
Page 329 of 380
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
The Summit at Kendall Ridge
2170933.10
Appendix B
Preliminary Plat Set
Not included in Hearing Examiner Packet.
Page 330 of 380
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
The Summit at Kendall Ridge
2170933.10
Appendix C
Preliminary Stormwater Design Calculations
C-1....................Predeveloped Basin Map
C-2....................Developed Basin Map
C-3....................Flow Control Calculations
C-4....................Water Quality Calculations
C-5....................Downstream Drainage Analysis
C-6....................Threshold Discharge Area Tables
Not included in Hearing Examiner Packet.
Page 331 of 380
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
The Summit at Kendall Ridge
2170933.10
Appendix D
WWHM Reports
D-1....................West Basin WWHM Report
D-2....................East Basin WWHM Report
Not included in Hearing Examiner Packet.
Page 332 of 380
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
The Summit at Kendall Ridge
2170933.10
Appendix E
Geotechnical Report
included as Exhibit 10 in Hearing Examiner Packet.
Page 333 of 380
SCHOOL ACCESS FORM
To: Auburn School District (or other district located in the City limits of Auburn)
From: ______________________________________________________________________
(Project Representative)
______________________________________________________________________
(Contact information – Professional title, company, address, phone, and e-mail)
Re: REQUEST FOR SCHOOL ACCESS INFORMATION FOR CITY OF AUBURN
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION
Date: _________________________
The property owner of Assessor’s Tax Parcen(s): (Indicate King or Pierce County)
____________________________________________________________________________
Intends to develop the following parcel(s) located at:
____________________________________________________________________________
With the following described subdivision proposal: (indicate acres, number, and type of dwelling
units)
____________________________________________________________________________
Copy of the proposed preliminary plat and vicinity map is attached. As part of this application,
the City of Auburn Planning and the Transportation Divisions have requested the following
information to be provided and considered by the City in the decision on whether to approve the
subdivision:
The site is within the school areas of the following grade levels:
1. Elementary: __________________________________
2. Jr. High / Middle: ______________________________
3. High School: _________________________________
Will the students walk or be bussed from these schools?
1. Elementary: __________________________________
2. Jr. High / Middle: ______________________________
3. High School: _________________________________
EXHIBIT 12
Page 334 of 380
If the students will walk, do you have any comments regarding the condition or safety of the
available walking routes from the proposed subdivision site to the following schools?
1. Elementary: __________________________________
2. Jr. High / Middle: ______________________________
3. High School: _________________________________
If the students will be bussed, where do you anticipate the bus stops will be located? Will an
existing or future planned bus stop be adversely affected by the subdivision proposal? If this
information is not available at this time, where are the closest bus stops to this site?
1. Elementary: __________________________________
2. Jr. High / Middle: ______________________________
3. High School: _________________________________
Please indicate any other comments/concerns on behalf of the school district:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Please indicate the name and contact information of the school district representative providing
the information on this form:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Please contact the Project Representative listed at the top of this form, if you have any
questions. After this form is completed with information from the school district, please return
the completed form either directly to the City of Auburn Permit Center at
permitcenter@auburnwa.gov or to the Project Representative. Thank you for your assistance.
Page 335 of 380
HIGHWAY 18ROAD A
(LOCAL RESIDENTIAL)133RD AVE SE(LOCAL RESIDENTIAL)ROAD B(LOCAL RESIDENTIAL)EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS AND PRIVATE DRIVE
SHARED ACCESS/UTILITY EASEMENTSHARED ACCESS/UTILITY EASEMENTTRACT A132RD AVE SE(MINOR ARTERIAL)1
2
3
4 5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13 14
15
16
17
ROAD A
(LOCAL RESIDENTIAL)
TRACT B
TRACT C
PARCEL #1021059079
PARCEL #1021059058
PARCEL #3814901080
KENDALL RIDGE
TRACT B
PARCEL #3814901120
PARCEL #3814901090
KENDALL RIDGE TRACT C
PARCEL #3814901110
KENDALL RIDGE
TRACT E
PARCEL #3814901100
KENDALL RIDGE TRACT D
PARCEL #3814900850
PARCEL #3814900840
PARCEL #3814900830
PARCEL #3814900820
PARCEL #3814900810
PARCEL #3814900800
PARCEL #3814900790
PARCEL #3814900780
PARCEL #3814900770PARCEL #3814900760PARCEL #3814900750PARCEL #3814900740PARCEL #3814900730
PARCEL #3814900720
PARCEL #3814900710
KENDALL RIDGE
TRACT K
2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403
253.383.2422TEL 253.383.2572FAX www.ahbl.comWEB
TACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIES
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
8
STKTDW/TDSTDW
OCTOBER 15, 2018
PRELIMINARY PLAT
SUBMITTAL
2170933.10
PHIL MITCHELL
910 TRAFFIC AVENUE
SUMNER, WA 98390
MITCHELL
DEVELOPMENT II, LLC
THE SUMMIT AT
KENDALL RIDGE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 10, TWN. 21 N., RGE. 05 E. W.M.
CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
THE SUMMIT AT KENDALL RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT
DATE: February 13, 2019 FILENAME: Q:\2017\2170933\10_CIV\CAD\_Preliminary Plat\2170933-SH-COVR.dwg
COVER SHEET
C0.0
1
NAVD 1988 VERTICAL DATUM ON ORTHOMETRICALLY CORRECTED
GPS OBSERVATIONS USING WSRN AND GEOID 2012A.
VERTICAL DATUM
NAD 1983
WASHINGTON STATE PLANE NORTH PROJECTION, BASED ON GPS
OBSERVATIONS USING WSRN AND GEOID 2012A. UNITS OF
MEASUREMENT ARE US SURVEY FEET.
BASIS OF BEARING
FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED
SET NAIL AND WASHER
SET REBAR AND CAP
FOUND PROPERTY CORNER
MAIL BOX
SIGN AS NOTED
SOIL BORE
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
STORM CATCH BASIN
UTILITY POWER POLE
JUNCTION BOX
POWER METER
LUMINAIRE
TELEPHONE RISER
FIRE HYDRANT
IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE
WATER METER
WATER VALVE
C-CEDAR, F-FIR, P-PINE
A-ALDER, CH-CHERRY
CW-COTTONWOOD, HT-HAWTHORN
M-MAPLE, U-UNKNOWN
STORM LINE
SEWER LINE
WATER LINE
GAS LINE
ELECTRICAL LINE
COMMUNICATION LINE
OVERHEAD UTILITIES
FENCE
UNKNOWN VAULT
LEGEND
ASPHALT
CONCRETE
WETLAND BUFFER
WETLAND
N
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 50 100
1" = 50 FEET
25
N
SCALE: 1" = 1/4 MILE (1320')
VICINITY MAP
SE 304TH ST
SITE
SE 306TH ST
SE 307TH ST132ND AVE SE133RD AVE SE
HIGHWAY 18
SE 312TH WAY
SE 312TH ST 130TH AVE SE124TH AVE SESE 304T
H
S
T
SE 301ST ST
SE 299TH ST
132ND AVE SESE 301ST ST
SE 299TH PL
128TH PL SE127TH WAY SESE 315TH PL
SE 314TH PL124TH AVE SEAUBURN-ECHO
LAKE CUTOFF RD
SHEET INDEX
SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE
C0.0 COVER SHEET
C1.0 EXISTING FEATURES PLAN AND FIELD TOPOGRAPHY
C1.1 CONCEPTUAL PLAT MAP
C2.0 CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
C2.1 ROAD PROFILES AND SECTIONS
C3.0 CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN
C4.0 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
EXISTING PROPOSED
CIVIL ENGINEER
AHBL
2215 NORTH 30TH STREET, SUITE 300
TACOMA, WA 98403
PH: (253) 383-2422
FAX: (253) 383-2572
CONTACT: MATT WEBER, PE
OWNER
UTILITY NOTE
TOPOGRAPHIC NOTE
THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE
APPROXIMATE ONLY AND HAVE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY
VERIFIED BY THE OWNER OR ITS REPRESENTATIVE. THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF
ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK AND
AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL
DAMAGES THAT INCUR DUE TO THE CONTRACTOR'S FAILURE
TO LOCATE EXACTLY AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. AHBL ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR
THE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.
THE EXISTING CULTURAL AND TOPOGRAPHIC DATA SHOWN ON
THESE DRAWINGS HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED, IN PART, UPON
INFORMATION FURNISHED BY OTHERS. WHILE THIS INFORMATION IS
BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE, AHBL CANNOT ENSURE ACCURACY AND
THUS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OF THAT
INFORMATION OR FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS WHICH MAY
HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THESE DRAWINGS AS A RESULT.
SURVEYOR
AHBL
2215 NORTH 30TH STREET, SUITE 300
TACOMA, WA 98403
PH: (253) 383-2422
FAX: (253) 383-2572
CONTACT: DAVE FOLLANSBEE, PLS
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
SOUTH SOUND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING
P.O. BOX 39500
LAKEWOOD, WA 98496
PH: (253) 973-0515
CONTACT: TIMOTHY ROBERTS
PARCEL NUMBERS
KENNETH AND CLAIRE TEAGUE
30440 132ND AVE SE
AUBURN, WA 98002
1021059059, 1021059095
KENDALL
RIDGE
RACEWAY MINI
STORAGE
PARCEL A:
THE EAST 208.71 FEET OF THE WEST 558.71 FEET OF THE SOUTH 208.71 FEET OF THE NORTH
538.71 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON;
PARCEL A1:
A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, AND UTILITIES OVER, UNDER AND
ACROSS THE SOUTH 30 FEET OF THE NORTH 360 FEET OF THE WEST 350 FEET OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 10
PARCEL A2:
A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES OVER, UNDER AND ACROSS
A STRIP OF LAND 60 FEET IN WIDTH, THE CENTERLINE OF WHICH IS THE NORTH LINE OF THE
SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 10; EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID EASEMENT LYING
WITHIN 132ND AVENUE SOUTHEAST.
PARCEL B:
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON;
EXCEPT THE NORTH 330 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPT THE EAST 208.71 FEET OF THE WEST
558.71 FEET OF THE SOUTH 208.71 FEET OF THE NORTH 538.71 FEET THEREOF; ALSO, THAT
PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 10, LYING WEST OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 2, ECHO LAKE
FREEWAY, AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 4975990, AND
LYING NORTHERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT A POINT 719.15 FEET
NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 10; THENCE EAST TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PRIMARY
STATE HIGHWAY NO. 2 EXCEPT THE NORTH 330 FEET THEREOF; EXCEPT THAT PORTION
CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER
9506201491;
PARCEL B1:
A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY PURPOSES OVER THE SOUTH
30 FEET OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 10; EXCEPT THE WEST 30 FEET; AND OVER THE
NORTH 30 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 10; EXCEPT THE WEST 30 FEET.
Tax Parcel Number: 102105905909 and 102105909505
Sites Address: 30440 132nd Avenue SE, Auburn, WA 98092
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
GRAVEL
RETAINING WALL
ELEVATIONS PER PLAN
BUS STOP
7-1/2 FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK
NEIGHBORHOOD
CIRCULATION
PLAN
1
SAFE WALKING
ROUTE PLAN
Page 336 of 380
Civil Engineers
Structural Engineers
Landscape Architects
Community Planners
Land Surveyors
Neighbors
TACOMA
2215 North 30th Street
Suite 300
Tacoma, WA 98403-3350
253.383.2422 TEL
www.ahbl.com
April 25, 2019
Ms. Alexandria Teague
Mr. Thaniel Gouk
City of Auburn
Community Development Services
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
Project: The Summit at Kendall Ridge, AHBL No. 2170933.10
Subject: Minimum Density Deviation Request
Dear Alexandria and Thaniel:
Pursuant to AMC 18.02.065A(5), we respectfully request administrative approval to deviate
from the minimum density requirements for The Summit at Kendall Ridge, located at 30440
132nd Avenue SE in King County (Parcels 1021059059 and 1021059095). The project is
currently being reviewed by the city under PLT18-0001.
The project site is approximately 4.5 acres and zoned R-5 Residential. The zoning
requirements of the R-5 zone is a minimum of four units per gross acre and a base maximum
of five units per gross acre, Based on the site’s acreage, the minimum density requirement is
18 units, with a base density of 24 units. Due to onsite critical areas which include steep
slopes, an onsite Category III wetland and wetland buffer, we are proposing the construction of
17 units which falls below the minimum requirement of 18 units.
Granting this deviation will allow the project to move forward with a density close to the
minimum density requirements of the R-5 zone. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact me at (253) 383-2422.
Sincerely,
J. Matthew Weber, PE
Principal
TDW/lsk
Enclosures
Q:\2017\2170933\10_CIV\NON_CAD\SUBMITTALS\Deviation_minimum density\20190422Ltr (Deviation request_minimum density)
2170933.10.docx
Sincerely,
J. Matthew Weber, PE
EXHIBIT 13
Page 337 of 380
Civil Engineers
Structural Engineers
Landscape Architects
Community Planners
Land Surveyors
Neighbors
TACOMA
2215 North 30th Street
Suite 300
Tacoma, WA 98403-3350
253.383.2422 TEL
www.ahbl.com
September 5, 2019
Ms. Alexandria Teague
Mr. Thaniel Gouk
City of Auburn
Community Development Services
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
Project: The Summit at Kendall Ridge, AHBL No. 2170933.10
Subject: Critical Areas Variance Request
Dear Alexandria and Thaniel:
Please find attached an application for a Critical Areas Variance for the Mitchell Auburn Plat,
located at 30440 132nd Avenue SE in King County (Parcels 1021059059 and 1021059095).
Specifically, we are requesting relief from Auburn City Code (ACC) 16.10 requiring a 25-foot
buffer to allow a reduction of the wetland buffer by less than 5 percent
The project site is approximately 4.50 acres and is zoned R-5 Residential. Overall, the site
contains a dirt access road easement, a residence in the northeast portion of the site, a
forested slope on the eastern boundary, and a wetland on the western boundary, extending
offsite to the west. The surrounding uses include single-family residential to the north, the
Kendall Ridge housing development to the west and south, and State Highway 18 (SR 18) to
the east. Raceway Mini Storage is directly northwest of the site.
The project proposes demolishing the existing single-family residence and constructing a 17-lot
residential plat, with a wetland/buffer tract (Tract A) and stormwater tracts. Proposed Tract A
(27,613 square feet) contains an onsite Category III wetland and associated 25-foot wide
buffer. The project will unavoidably impact 467 square feet of the onsite wetland buffer and
476 square feet of offsite wetland buffer, for a total wetland buffer impact of 943 square
feet. The impacted buffer is an existing unvegetated dirt road within an existing 30-foot wide
access and utility easement. It is proposed to add 1,666.80 square feet to the buffer in the
Sensitive Area Tract (1,043.03 square feet on the southern portion of the tract and 623.77
square feet on the northern portion of the tract). The added buffer (1,666.80 square feet) and
exiting buffer to remain (10,400 square feet) are proposed to be enhanced with native trees
and shrubs and monitoring the system for 3 years to assure success of the buffer
enhancement. The buffer is proposed to be reduced at the narrow north end of the wetland,
where a 12-inch pipe crosses the existing dirt road and discharges stormwater to the
wetland. Appendix A contains a map of the buffer impact, restoration, and buffer addition
areas.
See the attached Wetland Buffer Enhancement Report prepared by Theresa Dusek Consulting
for a buffer impact and enhancement map and mitigation specifications. Appendix A contains
a map of the buffer impact, restoration, and buffer addition areas.
EXHIBIT 14
Page 338 of 380
Ms. Alexandria Teague
Mr. Thaniel Gouk
September 5, 2019
2170933.10
Page 2 of 3
Variance Criteria
A. There are unique physical conditions peculiar and inherent to the affected property
which make it difficult or infeasible to strictly comply with the provisions of this section.
The site has an existing road and utility easement located along the northern
boundary of the site. The areas west and south of the site are fully developed
with residences. The area east of the site is a very steep slope above SR 18.
Each of these constraints leaves the only feasible access to the site as the
existing road and utility easement.
B. The variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the building footprint and
access.
The proposed access is the minimum necessary to meet code requirements for
the proposed development.
C. The proposed variance would preserve the functions and values of the critical area,
and/or the proposal does not create or increase a risk to the public health, safety, and
general welfare, or to public or private property.
Functions and values of the wetland will not be impacted because the impact
area is an existing unvegetated dirt road, and the new road pervious surface will
have water quality treatment. The proposal does not create or increase risk to
the public health, safety, and general welfare, or to public or private property.
All code required health and safety regulations are proposed to be met and best
management practices will be provided to protect the wetland during
development, including clearing limits and erosion control.
D. The proposed variance would not adversely affect surrounding properties adjoining.
The proposed variance will not adversely affect surrounding properties
adjoining the site. The existing road and utility easement are not proposed to be
modified, and the new paved access road will be in the same footprint as the
existing road and utility easement.
E. Adverse impacts to critical areas resulting from the proposal are minimized.
The project avoids all impacts to the wetland. Impacts to the wetland buffer
cannot be avoided because there are no other primary access points to the site.
Impacts to the wetland buffer have been minimized by placing the proposed
paved access road in the footprint of the existing dirt access road.
F. The special circumstances or conditions affecting the property are not a result of the
actions of the applicant or previous owner.
The circumstances and conditions are not a result of the actions of the applicant
or previous owner.
Page 339 of 380
Ms. Alexandria Teague
Mr. Thaniel Gouk
September 5, 2019
2170933.10
Page 3 of 3
We respectfully request approval of this Critical Areas Variance. If you have any questions or
need additional information, please contact me at (253) 383-2422.
Sincerely,
J. Matthew Weber, PE
Principal
TDW/lsk
Enclosures
Q:\2017\2170933\WORDPROC\Letters\20190905 Ltr (Critical Area Var Req) 2170933.10.docx
Page 340 of 380
Civil Engineers
Structural Engineers
Landscape Architects
Community Planners
Land Surveyors
Neighbors
TACOMA
2215 North 30th Street
Suite 300
Tacoma, WA 98403-3350
253.383.2422 TEL
www.ahbl.com
April 15, 2019
Mr. Steve Sturza, PE
City of Auburn
Community Development Services
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
Project: The Summit at Kendall Ridge, AHBL No. 2170933.10
Subject: Deviation Request for PRE 18-0003
Dear Steve:
We are submitting for preliminary plat approval for subdivision of the property located at 30440
132nd Avenue SE on King County Parcels 1021059059 and 1021059095. As you will recall, we
submitted a Deviation Request as part of our original pre-application materials. This deviation
request is an expanded version of what was submitted for the Pre-Application Meeting and
also includes the Preliminary Plat Set attached as Appendix A.
Proposed Project
The project site is approximately 4.50 acres and currently contains one single-family residential
structure. The property is zoned R-5 Residential. The site is currently accessed by a private
driveway and roadway easement that crosses the neighboring parcels to the west and
connects to 132nd Avenue SE. The surrounding uses include single-family residential to the
north, Kendall Ridge housing development to the west and south, and State Highway 18 to the
east. Raceway Mini Storage is directly northwest of the site.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing single-family home and to subdivide the site
into 17 single-family lots. The project proposes one point of access to 133rd Avenue SE, which
is classified as a “Local Residential Street.” This roadway was previously constructed with the
Kendall Ridge development and provides connectivity to 132nd Avenue SE, an urban minor
arterial. The Kendall Ridge improvements reserved Tract K for future public roadway
connection to our site.
There are unique characteristics of the site that make approval of the requested deviations
necessary for access to the property. It appears that when Kendall Ridge was originally
approved and platted, 133rd Avenue SE was planned to extend farther to the north and connect
to SE 304th Street/132nd Avenue SE. However, it appears that the planned extension of 133rd
Avenue SE was abandoned with the approval of Raceway Mini Storage. The City’s approval of
Raceway Mini Storage has severely limited overall connectivity to our site, thus creating the
need for approval of the following deviations to City of Auburn Engineering Design Standards,
dated January 7, 2019 (Design Standards).
DEV18-0017 Deviation Request Letter
EXHIBIT 15
Page 341 of 380
Mr. Steve Sturza, PE
April 15, 2019
2170933.10
Page 2 of 7
Proposed Deviations
Section 1.05 of the Design Standards requires justification for each design element deviation.
We have attempted to identify the specific standards that would apply to the proposed access,
and have provided explanations below to justify each of the deviations we are currently
proposing. Refer to Exhibit A for the Preliminary Plat Set.
1. Maximum Number of Dwelling Units on a Cul-de-sac:
a. Functional intent of the design element: Design Standard 10.02.10.3 states, “dead
end streets ending in permanent cul-de-sacs shall serve a maximum of 30
dwelling units.” The project proposes to extend 133rd Avenue SE (which serves
21 dwelling units in Kendall Ridge) to our site, ending in a cul-de-sac that will
serve the proposed 17 dwelling units. Depending on where the City interprets the
cul-de-sac standards to begin, the roadway could serve up to a total of 38
dwelling units. Connecting to the roadway within Kendall Ridge is necessary for
access to our site because the extension of the 133rd Avenue SE right-of-way was
never constructed.
b. Safety factors: The proposed roadway connection will not restrict any emergency
vehicles from entering or leaving the property. In addition to the access through
Kendall Ridge, emergency vehicles could also use the emergency vehicle access
located in an easement connected directly to 132nd Avenue SE.
c. Operational concerns: Connectivity to non-motorized paths will be maintained for
each lot. A half roadway is proposed along the north edge of the site to provide
future connectivity to the adjacent property to the north.
d. Maintenance concerns: This deviation will not cause any issues regarding site
maintenance. All proposed lots will have access from the public right-of-way and
shared access easements.
e. Liability concerns: This deviation will not cause any liability concerns. Granting of
this deviation will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
property in the vicinity.
f. Capabilities and/or efficiencies: The proposed lots will be provided with sewer
connections, water service connections, and a storm drainage system.
g. Design life, historical performance, and durability: The design life and durability of
the proposed roadway will not be affected by this deviation. The materials used to
construct the roadway will remain the same as a local residential street, and will
be constructed to City standards.
h. Aesthetic and visual impacts: This deviation will have a positive impact to the
aesthetics of the site. The existing dead end at the north end of 133rd Avenue SE
within Kendall Ridge will be extended to connect to the proposed development.
Connecting directly to 132nd Avenue SE through the existing road easement is not
likely desired within the rear yards of Kendall Ridge and would have a significant
impact on the homeowners that abut the roadway easement.
Page 342 of 380
Mr. Steve Sturza, PE
April 15, 2019
2170933.10
Page 3 of 7
i. Cost effectiveness and availability of any replacement components or materials:
The materials used to construct the roadway will not be affected by this deviation.
The roadway will be constructed with a standard asphalt pavement section with
concrete curb and gutter and concrete sidewalk.
j. Consistency with the spirit and purpose of the corresponding design standard:
The intent of the design standard is to discourage the use of cul-de-sacs in order
to promote connectivity. The proposed development will provide an opportunity
for a future connection to the north. Emergency vehicles will have two access
points to the site. Because of existing topography and State Highway 18 to the
east, future development and connectivity to the east is not expected.
k. Demonstrate that the environment will not be adversely affected: All stormwater
runoff from pollution generating impervious surfaces will be treated onsite. All
construction will comply with the 2019 City of Auburn Engineering Construction
Standards, and a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
will be prepared in accordance with King County standards. Additional lots on a
cul-de-sac will have no adverse effect on the environment.
l. Supported by published industry standards: It is the industry standard to limit the
number of intersections to an arterial and separation from other intersections.
Granting this deviation will lessen the intersection impact onto 132nd Avenue SE
and provide connectivity to our site. The City’s approval of Raceway Mini Storage
and abandonment of the right-of-way extension of 133rd Avenue SE to SE 304th
Street have detrimentally affected our site and its ability to meet minimum density
requirements. Therefore, the requested deviation is based on sound engineering
judgement and is supported by industry standards.
2. Maximum Length of Cul-de-sac:
a. Functional intent: Depending on where the City interprets the cul-de-sac standard
to begin, the proposed development includes a dead end roadway approximately
1,200 feet in length from the center of the nearest four-way intersection within
Kendall Ridge. This deviation serves to provide primary access for the property
and will be used by only the homeowners and their guests. Having a slightly
longer cul-de-sac has no impact to the functional intent of the roadway.
b. Safety factors: The proposed roadway connection will not restrict any emergency
vehicles from entering or leaving the property. In addition to the access through
Kendall Ridge, emergency vehicles could also use the existing driveway and
easement connected directly to 132nd Avenue SE.
c. Operational concerns: Connectivity to non-motorized paths will be maintained for
each lot. A half roadway is proposed along the north edge of the site to provide
future connectivity to the adjacent property to the north.
d. Maintenance concerns: This deviation to allow a longer cul-de-sac will not cause
any issues regarding site maintenance.
e. Liability concerns: This deviation will not cause any liability concerns. It will be
used by the residents and their guests. Low traffic volume and reduced speed
limit will minimize the potential of an accident.
Page 343 of 380
Mr. Steve Sturza, PE
April 15, 2019
2170933.10
Page 4 of 7
f. Capabilities and/or efficiencies: A slightly longer cul-de-sac roadway will have no
detrimental effect on capability or efficiency. The proposed lots will be provided
with sewer connections, water service connections, and a storm drainage system.
g. Design life, historical performance, and durability: The design life and durability of
the proposed roadway will not be affected by this deviation. The materials used to
construct the roadway will remain the same as a local residential street, and will
be constructed to City standards.
h. Aesthetic and visual impacts: This deviation will have a positive impact to the
aesthetics of the site. The existing dead end at the north end of 133rd Avenue SE
within Kendall Ridge will be extended to connect to the proposed development.
i. Cost effectiveness and availability of any replacement components or materials:
The materials used to construct the roadway will not be affected by this deviation.
The roadway will be constructed with a standard asphalt pavement section with
concrete curb and gutter and concrete sidewalk.
j. Consistency with the spirit and purpose of the corresponding design standard:
The intent of the design standard is to discourage the use of cul-de-sacs in order
to promote connectivity. The proposed development will provide an opportunity
for a future connection to the north. Emergency vehicles will have two access
points to the site. Because of existing topography and State Highway 18 to the
east, future development and connectivity to the east is not expected.
k. Demonstrate that the environment will not be adversely affected: All stormwater
runoff from pollution generating impervious surfaces will be treated onsite. All
construction will comply with the 2019 City of Auburn Engineering Construction
Standards, and a Construction SWPPP will be prepared in accordance with King
County standards. The slightly longer cul-de-sac length will have no adverse
effect on the environment.
l. Supported by published industry standards: Section 10.02.10.3 of the Design
Standards states that dead end streets shall not be more than 800 feet in length,
measured from the center of the nearest four-way intersection to the center of the
cul-de-sac. The proposed dead end street is approximately 1,200 feet in length
from the center of the intersection of SE 306th Street and 133rd Avenue SE to the
center of the cul-de-sac, and is necessary for access to the proposed lots.
Exceeding the number of lots on a cul-de-sac does not affect the function or
maintainability of the roadway and is necessary because there are no other
options for connectivity. Therefore, the requested deviation is based on sound
engineering judgement and is supported by industry standards.
3. Minimum Right-of-Way Width and Roadway Section:
a. Functional intent: We are proposing to construct half-street improvements along
existing Tract K, which the Kendall Ridge development has provided for a future
road, and half-street improvements along the northern boundary of the project site
to provide connectivity to the property to the north. The new east/west roadway
section is proposed to similarly meet Alternative A for the local residential street
section in the Design Standards, but with a modified right-of-way width, 22 feet of
pavement, 7.5 feet of sidewalk along the south side of the road, and a landscape
Page 344 of 380
Mr. Steve Sturza, PE
April 15, 2019
2170933.10
Page 5 of 7
strip along the north side of the road with a maximum width of 5 feet. We are
proposing a right-of-way width ranging from 31.26 feet to 35.5 feet along the north
edge of the property to better comply with the Design Standards and to allow for a
grading transition for the roadway grading to daylight prior to impacting adjoining
properties where necessary. See the attached Preliminary Plat Set for the
proposed roadway sections.
b. Safety factors: The proposed roadway connection will not restrict any emergency
vehicles from entering or leaving the property. In addition to the access through
Kendall Ridge, emergency vehicles could also use the existing driveway and
easement connected directly to 132nd Avenue SE.
c. Operational concerns: Connectivity to non-motorized paths will be maintained for
the site. A half roadway is proposed along the north edge of the site to provide
future connectivity to the adjacent property to the north.
d. Maintenance concerns: This deviation will not cause any issues regarding site
maintenance. All proposed lots will have access from the public right-of-way.
e. Liability concerns: This deviation will not cause any liability concerns. The
proposed roadway will be surfaced and will provide a sidewalk for safe walking
routes.
f. Capabilities and/or efficiencies: The 35.5-foot right-of-way section proposed
allows for 22 feet of paved width for the half-street, including the concrete gutter;
two 0.5-foot curbs; 7.5 feet of sidewalk; and 5 feet between the north curb and the
north property line to allow for grading of the roadway. The half-street will include
a storm drainage system, utilities, lighting, and conduits.
g. Design life, historical performance, and durability: The design life and durability of
the proposed roadway will not be affected by this deviation. The materials used to
construct the roadway will remain the same as a local residential street.
h. Aesthetic and visual impacts: The half-street will only include curb, gutter, and
sidewalk along the south side of the road adjacent to Lots 1, 11, and 12. The
north edge of the roadway along the property line will consist of a temporary
concrete barrier curb and a 5-foot wide landscaped area daylighting to existing
grade, allowing for construction of the full width roadway as part of any future
improvements to the adjacent property to the north.
i. Cost effectiveness and availability of any replacement components or materials:
The materials used to construct the roadway will not be affected by this deviation.
The roadway will be constructed with a standard asphalt pavement section with
concrete curb and gutter and concrete sidewalk.
j. Consistency with the spirit and purpose of the corresponding design standard:
The intent of the design standard is to provide adequate right-of-way width to
include all of the improvements required by the City of Auburn for a local
residential street. The proposed right-of-way widths accommodate all of the
required improvements for a half-street, and allow for future development to the
north of the site.
k. Demonstrate that the environment will not be adversely affected: All stormwater
runoff from pollution generating impervious surfaces will be treated onsite. All
Page 345 of 380
Mr. Steve Sturza, PE
April 15, 2019
2170933.10
Page 6 of 7
construction will comply with the 2019 City of Auburn Engineering Construction
Standards (Design Standards), and a Construction SWPPP will be prepared in
accordance with King County standards. The requested right-of-way width will
have no adverse effect on the environment.
l. Supported by published industry standards: Table 10-1 of the Design Standards
states that the minimum right-of-way width for a local residential street is 50 feet
with curb and gutter, landscape strip, and sidewalk on both sides. The 35.5-foot
right-of-way section proposed allows for 22 feet of paved width for the half-street,
including the concrete gutter; two 0.5-foot curbs; 7.5 feet of sidewalk; and 5 feet
between the north curb and the north property line to allow for grading of the
roadway.
4. Minimum Horizontal Curve Radius:
a. Functional intent: The project proposes to connect to the north end of 133rd
Avenue SE, located within the Kendall Ridge development. Connecting to the
roadway within Kendall Ridge is necessary for access to our site because the
extension of the 133rd Avenue SE right-of-way was never constructed.
b. Safety factors: The proposed roadway connection will not restrict any emergency
vehicles from entering or leaving the property. In addition to the access through
Kendall Ridge, emergency vehicles could also use the emergency vehicle access
located in an easement connected directly to 132nd Avenue SE.
c. Operational concerns: Connectivity to non-motorized paths will be maintained for
each lot. The proposed 31-foot radius will maintain sufficient width along the
curve to match the proposed roadway section, while providing the minimum curb
radius of 20 feet.
d. Maintenance concerns: This deviation will not cause any issues regarding site
maintenance. All proposed lots will have access from the public right-of-way and
shared access easements.
e. Liability concerns: This deviation will not cause any liability concerns. Granting of
this deviation will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
property in the vicinity.
f. Capabilities and/or efficiencies: The proposed lots will be provided with sewer
connections, water service connections, and a storm drainage system.
g. Design life, historical performance, and durability: The design life and durability of
the proposed roadway will not be affected by this deviation. The materials used to
construct the roadway will remain the same as a local residential street, and will
be constructed to City standards.
h. Aesthetic and visual impacts: This deviation will have a positive impact to the
aesthetics of the site. The existing dead end at the north end of 133rd Avenue SE
within Kendall Ridge will be extended to connect to the proposed development.
Connecting directly to 132nd Avenue SE through the existing road easement is not
likely desired within the rear yards of Kendall Ridge and would have a significant
impact on the homeowners that abut the roadway easement.
Page 346 of 380
Mr. Steve Sturza, PE
April 15, 2019
2170933.10
Page 7 of 7
i. Cost effectiveness and availability of any replacement components or materials:
The materials used to construct the roadway will not be affected by this deviation.
The roadway will be constructed with a standard asphalt pavement section with
concrete curb and gutter and concrete sidewalk.
j. Consistency with the spirit and purpose of the corresponding design standard:
The intent of the design standard is to allow vehicles to safely negotiate a turn
without leaving their driving lane. The lane width along the curve will be no less
than 11 feet, which is greater than the minimum lane width of 10 feet stated in
Table 10-1 of the Design Standards. Emergency vehicles will have two access
points to the site.
k. Demonstrate that the environment will not be adversely affected: All stormwater
runoff from pollution generating impervious surfaces will be treated onsite. All
construction will comply with the 2019 City of Auburn Engineering Construction
Standards, and a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
will be prepared in accordance with King County standards. The smaller
intersection radius will have no adverse effect on the environment.
l. Supported by published industry standards: Table 10-1 of the Design Standards
states that the minimum horizontal curve radius for a local road approaching a cul-
de-sac is 100 feet. Because of the built environment, a radius of 100 feet is not
feasible for this point of connection because the right-of-way will conflict with a
portion of the existing Kendall Ridge lots. A horizontal curve radius of 31 feet is
proposed at this location, which will line up the point of curvature with the end of
the built portion of the 133rd Avenue SE centerline. Therefore, the requested
deviation is based on sound engineering judgement and is supported by industry
standards.
Because of the unique circumstances of this site and the magnitude of the required roadway
improvements, we respectfully request the City’s approval of the proposed deviations.
We look forward to working with you as you proceed with our request. If you have any
questions, please call me at (253) 383-2422.
Sincerely,
J. Matthew Weber, PE
Principal
TDW/lsk
Enclosures
Q:\2017\2170933\WORDPROC\Letters\20190415 Ltr (Deviation Req) 2170933.10.docx 11/06/2019
Page 347 of 380
Civil Engineers
Structural Engineers
Landscape Architects
Community Planners
Land Surveyors
Neighbors
TACOMA
2215 North 30th Street
Suite 300
Tacoma, WA 98403-3350
253.383.2422 TEL
www.ahbl.com
September 10, 2019
Mr. Steve Sturza, PE
City of Auburn
Community Development Services
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
Project: The Summit at Kendall Ridge, AHBL No. 2170933.10
Subject: Deviation Request for PRE 18-0003
Dear Steve:
We are submitting for preliminary plat approval for subdivision of the property located at 30440
132nd Avenue SE on King County Parcels 1021059059 and 1021059095. As you will recall, we
submitted a Deviation Request as part of our original pre-application materials. This deviation
request is an expanded version of what was submitted for the Pre-Application Meeting and
also includes the Preliminary Plat Set attached as Appendix A.
Proposed Project
The project site is approximately 4.50 acres and currently contains one single-family residential
structure. The property is zoned R-5 Residential. The site is currently accessed by a private
driveway and roadway easement that crosses the neighboring parcels to the west and
connects to 132nd Avenue SE. The surrounding uses include single-family residential to the
north, Kendall Ridge housing development to the west and south, and State Highway 18 to the
east. Raceway Mini Storage is directly northwest of the site.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing single-family home and to subdivide the site
into 17 single-family lots. The project proposes one point of access to 133rd Avenue SE, which
is classified as a “Local Residential Street.” This roadway was previously constructed with the
Kendall Ridge development and provides connectivity to 132nd Avenue SE, an urban minor
arterial. The Kendall Ridge improvements reserved Tract K for future public roadway
connection to our site.
There are unique characteristics of the site that make approval of the requested deviations
necessary for access to the property. It appears that when Kendall Ridge was originally
approved and platted, 133rd Avenue SE was planned to extend farther to the north and connect
to SE 304th Street/132nd Avenue SE. However, it appears that the planned extension of 133rd
Avenue SE was abandoned with the approval of Raceway Mini Storage. The City’s approval of
Raceway Mini Storage has severely limited overall connectivity to our site, thus creating the
need for approval of the following deviations to City of Auburn Engineering Design Standards,
dated January 7, 2019 (Design Standards).
DEV19-0031 Deviation Request Letter
Page 348 of 380
Mr. Steve Sturza, PE
September 10, 2019
2170933.10
Page 2 of 5
Proposed Deviations
Section 1.05 of the Design Standards requires justification for each design element deviation.
We have attempted to identify the specific standards that would apply to the proposed access,
and have provided explanations below to justify each of the deviations we are currently
proposing. Refer to Exhibit A for the Preliminary Plat Set.
5. Clear Zone – Lateral Separation (Chapter 10, Section 10.17):
a. Functional intent of the design element: The project proposes a 30.5-foot wide
road section for Road A, including a 0.5-foot temporary barrier curb along the
northern edge. The width between the easement and the property line at the
northwest corner is 31.26 feet. There is an existing fence along the northern
property line, which leaves only 1.26 feet between the northern edge of travelled
way and the fence. Once the roadway enters the property, it curves away from
the north property line to increase the clear zone to a maximum width of 5.5 feet.
After travelling approximately 85 feet into the property, the clear zone lateral
separation requirement of 4 feet is met.
b. Safety factors: The proposed clear zone width of 1.26 feet will not restrict any
emergency vehicles from entering or leaving the property. A temporary barrier
curb is proposed along the north edge of the roadway, as opposed to a wedge
curb, to further restrict vehicles from entering the clear zone and potentially hitting
the existing fence. The end of the fence is facing west and is adjacent to the
travel lane leaving the site toward the west. This layout minimizes the potential to
hit the westernmost fence pole at the northwest corner of the property.
c. Operational concerns: Granting this deviation will not cause any operational
concerns. The roadway will remain fully operational with the proposed clear zone
lateral separation of 1.26 feet.
d. Maintenance concerns: This deviation will cause a portion of the landscaped area
to be less than 2 feet in width, and will not be able to support plantings. Per the
discussion with the City on July 29, 2019, a weed barrier with crushed surfacing
top course will be used in place of landscaping in the area that is less than 2 feet
wide. There are no other maintenance concerns with granting this deviation.
e. Liability concerns: A liability concern related to this deviation is the potential for a
driver to collide with the fence. In this case, the driver must be held responsible to
fix the fence and bring it back to the existing condition. Granting of this deviation
will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to any other
property in the vicinity.
f. Capabilities and/or efficiencies: The proposed roadway will have adequate width
to provide the lots with sewer connections, water service connections, and a
storm drainage system.
g. Design life, historical performance, and durability: The design life and durability of
the proposed roadway will not be affected by this deviation. The materials used to
construct the roadway will remain the same as a local residential street, and will
be constructed to City standards.
Page 349 of 380
Mr. Steve Sturza, PE
September 10, 2019
2170933.10
Page 3 of 5
h. Aesthetic and visual impacts: This deviation will have a minor negative impact to
the aesthetics of the site. There will be a small area between the north barrier
curb and fence that is too narrow to support plantings, and will instead be covered
with crushed surfacing top course, as discussed in paragraph 5.d above.
i. Cost effectiveness and availability of any replacement components or materials:
The materials used to construct the roadway will not be affected by this deviation.
The roadway will be constructed with a standard asphalt pavement section with a
temporary barrier curb along the north edge.
j. Consistency with the spirit and purpose of the corresponding design standard:
The intent of the design standard is to discourage the construction of any fixed
roadside objects within 4 feet of the traveled way. The easement adjacent to the
existing fence is the only available option for access to the site.
k. Demonstrate that the environment will not be adversely affected: All stormwater
runoff from pollution generating impervious surfaces will be treated onsite. All
construction will comply with the 2019 City of Auburn Engineering Construction
Standards, and a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
will be prepared in accordance with King County standards. The clear zone
lateral separation of 1.26 feet will have no adverse effect on the environment.
l. Supported by published industry standards: Design Standard 10.17 states “The
City has adopted 4 feet as the minimum lateral separation from the face of curb to
fixed objects for streets with vertical curbs within the urban environment.” The
design standards also note that additional lateral separation may be required for
streets without vertical curbs. A temporary barrier curb is proposed along the
north edge of the roadway to minimize the clear zone requirements. Therefore,
the requested deviation is based on sound engineering judgement and is
supported by industry standards.
6. Extent of West Shared Access (Tract D) Improvements to End of Tract (Noted in the
comment letter received June 5, 2019):
a. Functional intent of the design element: The intent of this design element is to
provide access to all lots that abut the shared access tract, while enabling drivers
to enter and exit their own driveway without having to drive on an adjacent
driveway. The proposed shared access improvements end 6 feet from the end of
the access tract due to elevation constraints. The existing grade at the end of the
access tract is about 2 feet lower than the roadway elevation at the end of the
tract. The 6-foot setback from the property line will allow room to grade down at a
2:1 slope, as well as provide a 2-foot setback from the property line.
b. Safety factors: The proposed roadway connection will not restrict any emergency
vehicles from entering or leaving the lots on the shared access. A curb is
proposed at the end of the tract to prevent vehicles from driving beyond the end of
the improvements.
c. Operational concerns: The driveways were analyzed using AutoCAD vehicle
tracking to ensure that the AASHTO passenger vehicle can enter and exit the
driveways without using an adjacent driveway. The analysis is shown on the
Sight Distance Analysis sheet in the Preliminary Plat Set.
Page 350 of 380
Mr. Steve Sturza, PE
September 10, 2019
2170933.10
Page 4 of 5
d. Maintenance concerns: This deviation will not cause any issues regarding site
maintenance. All proposed lots will have access from the public right-of-way and
shared access easements.
e. Liability concerns: This deviation will not cause any liability concerns. Granting of
this deviation will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
property in the vicinity.
f. Capabilities and/or efficiencies: The proposed lots will be provided with sewer
connections, water service connections, and a storm drainage system. This
deviation will not restrict any of the lots that use the west shared access tract.
g. Design life, historical performance, and durability: The design life and durability of
the proposed roadway will not be affected by this deviation. The materials used to
construct the roadway will remain the same as a local residential street, and will
be constructed to City standards.
h. Aesthetic and visual impacts: This deviation will have a positive impact to the
aesthetics of the site. The 6-foot setback from the property line will allow for a
smooth transition down to existing grade, which can be used for landscaping and
plantings.
i. Cost effectiveness and availability of any replacement components or materials:
The materials used to construct the roadway will not be affected by this deviation.
j. Consistency with the spirit and purpose of the corresponding design standard:
The purposed of the design standard is to provide all lots on the shared access
with enough area to enter and exit the driveway without requiring the use of
adjacent driveways. All lots on the shared access will have adequate room for
access, so the deviation is consistent with the spirit and purpose of the
corresponding design standard.
k. Demonstrate that the environment will not be adversely affected: All stormwater
runoff from pollution generating impervious surfaces will be treated onsite. All
construction will comply with the 2019 City of Auburn Engineering Construction
Standards, and a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
will be prepared in accordance with King County standards. Ending the shared
access tract improvements 6 feet from the end of the tract will have no adverse
effect on the environment.
l. Supported by published industry standards: Per the comments received from the
City of Auburn on June 5, 2019, the access tract improvements must extend to
the end of the tract and the full length of the properties served. The tract
improvements are proposed to the maximum extent feasible due to elevation
constraints, and driveway access for entering and exiting each of the lots has
been confirmed to be adequate. Therefore, the requested deviation is based on
sound engineering judgement and is supported by industry standards.
Because of the unique circumstances of this site and the magnitude of the required roadway
improvements, we respectfully request the City’s approval of the proposed deviations.
Page 351 of 380
Mr. Steve Sturza, PE
September 10, 2019
2170933.10
Page 5 of 5
We look forward to working with you as you proceed with our request. If you have any
questions, please call me at (253) 383-2422.
Sincerely,
J. Matthew Weber, PE
Principal
TDW/lsk
Enclosures
Q:\2017\2170933\WORDPROC\Letters\20190910 Ltr (Deviation Req) 2170933.10.docx 11/06/2019
Page 352 of 380
Civil Engineers
Structural Engineers
Landscape Architects
Community Planners
Land Surveyors
Neighbors
TACOMA
2215 North 30th Street
Suite 300
Tacoma, WA 98403-3350
253.383.2422 TEL
www.ahbl.com
September 12, 2019
Mr. Steve Sturza, PE
City of Auburn
Community Development Services
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
Project: The Summit at Kendall Ridge, AHBL No. 2170933.10
Subject: Deviation Request for Detention Vault
Dear Steve:
We are submitting for preliminary plat approval for subdivision of the property located at 30440
132nd Avenue SE on King County Parcels 1021059059 and 1021059095.
Proposed Project
The project site is approximately 4.50 acres and currently contains one single-family residential
structure. The property is zoned R-5 Residential. The site is currently accessed by a private
driveway and roadway easement that crosses the neighboring parcels to the west and
connects to 132nd Avenue SE. The surrounding uses include single-family residential to the
north, Kendall Ridge housing development to the west and south, and State Highway 18 to the
east. Raceway Mini Storage is directly northwest of the site.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing single-family home and to subdivide the site
into 17 single-family lots. The project proposes one point of access to 133rd Avenue SE, which
is classified as a “Local Residential Street.” This roadway was previously constructed with the
Kendall Ridge development and provides connectivity to 132nd Avenue SE, an urban minor
arterial. The Kendall Ridge improvements reserved Tract K for future public roadway
connection to our site.
There are unique characteristics of the site that make approval of the requested deviation
necessary. A critical geological hazard area exists along the eastern edge of the site,
occupying approximately 0.815 acre. This area contains a steep slope that causes difficulties
with designing a standard detention pond at this location. A detention pond that meets all City
of Auburn requirements, while meeting the setback criteria from the geological hazard area,
would not fit within the proposed storm tract area (Tract C), and it would require the removal of
two to three lots in order to construct outside the geological hazard area and buffer. This
project currently proposes 17 lots, which is below the minimum allowed density of 18 units for
R-5 zoning (four dwelling units per gross acre). The removal of additional lots would not meet
the intent of the original zoning requirements. Therefore, a detention vault is proposed to
mitigate stormwater runoff from the site while keeping 17 lots, creating the need for approval of
the following deviation per the COA SWMM (Supplemental Manual), Volume III, Chapter 3.2.3.
All minimum requirements will be met through the use of the proposed detention vault.
DEV19-0034 Deviation Request Letter
Page 353 of 380
Mr. Steve Sturza, PE
September 12, 2019
2170933.10
Page 2 of 3
Proposed Deviations
Section 1.04 of the Design Standards requires justification for each design element deviation.
We have attempted to identify the specific standards that would apply to the proposed access,
and have provided explanations below to justify each of the deviations we are currently
proposing. Refer to Exhibit A for the Preliminary Plat Set.
7. Detention Vault (COA SWMM (Supplemental Manual), Volume III, Chapter 3.2.3):
a. Functional intent of the design element: The project proposes a detention vault
due to the limited space in the east storm tract (Tract C). This tract is constrained
by the critical geological hazard area and buffer to the east. The proposed
detention vault is located at the top of the steep slope outside the critical
geological hazard buffer. All minimum requirements will be met for the project.
b. Safety factors: The proposed detention vault will prevent runoff from discharging
onto the steep slope to the east, minimizing the chance for erosion of landslides.
The risk of seepage or a pond berm washout is also eliminated with the use of a
vault. The height of the proposed retaining wall to the east has decreased to
8 feet, compared to the 12-foot retaining wall height required for a detention pond.
The detention vault will be fenced off from adjacent lots with a locking gate, and
access openings will include locks to prevent unauthorized entrance to the vault.
c. Operational concerns: Granting this deviation will not cause any operational
concerns. Access to the vault will be provided through the east shared access
road (Tract E). All minimum requirements will be met for the project.
d. Maintenance concerns: There are no maintenance concerns with granting this
deviation. A gravel access road with a 45-foot inside radius is proposed to
provide access to the vault access openings and control structure. The detention
vault will require less maintenance than a detention pond because it does not
include landscaping.
e. Liability concerns: Granting of this deviation will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to any other property in the vicinity.
f. Capabilities and/or efficiencies: The proposed vault will meet the minimum
requirement for flow control.
g. Design life, historical performance, and durability: The design life for a detention
vault is expected to be much longer than a detention pond. The proposed vault
will be constructed with 3,000 psi structural reinforced concrete. The location of
the vault has been approved by the geotechnical engineer, and will be inspected
during construction to ensure the vault is placed on stable, native material.
h. Aesthetic and visual impacts: This deviation will have a positive impact to the
aesthetics of the site. The vault will not be exposed to the public, and will utilize
less area than a detention pond.
Page 354 of 380
Mr. Steve Sturza, PE
September 12, 2019
2170933.10
Page 3 of 3
i. Cost effectiveness and availability of any replacement components or materials:
The initial construction of the detention vault costs significantly more than a
detention pond because it constructed with reinforced concrete. However, the
control structure and access openings will be constructed with readily available
materials, and the replacement of these items will be relatively inexpensive
compared to the initial construction cost.
j. Consistency with the spirit and purpose of the corresponding design standard:
The proposed detention vault will meet all requirements in the SWMM and the
COA SWMM (Supplemental Manual).
k. Demonstrate that the environment will not be adversely affected: All stormwater
runoff from pollution generating impervious surfaces will be treated onsite. All
construction will comply with the 2019 City of Auburn Engineering Construction
Standards, and a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
will be prepared prior to construction. The proposed detention vault will have no
adverse effect on the environment.
l. Supported by published industry standards: The proposed detention vault will
meet all requirements in the SWMM and the COA SWMM (Supplemental
Manual). Therefore, the requested deviation is based on sound engineering
judgement and is supported by industry standards.
Because of the unique circumstances of this site and the magnitude of the required improvements,
we respectfully request the City’s approval of the proposed deviations.
We look forward to working with you as you proceed with our request. If you have any questions,
please call me at (253) 383-2422.
Sincerely,
J. Matthew Weber, PE
Principal
TDW/lsk
Enclosures
Q:\2017\2170933\WORDPROC\Letters\20190912 Ltr (Deviation Req-Det Vault) 2170933.10.docx 11/06/2019
Page 355 of 380
Civil Engineers
Structural Engineers
Landscape Architects
Community Planners
Land Surveyors
Neighbors
TACOMA
2215 North 30th Street
Suite 300
Tacoma, WA 98403-3350
253.383.2422 TEL
www.ahbl.com
December 13, 2019
Mr. Steve Sturza, PE
City of Auburn
Community Development Services
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
Project: The Summit at Kendall Ridge, AHBL No. 2170933.10
Subject: Deviation Request for Sidewalk Section
Dear Steve:
We are submitting for preliminary plat approval for subdivision of the property located at 30440
132nd Avenue SE on King County Parcels 1021059059 and 1021059095.
Proposed Project
The project site is approximately 4.50 acres and currently contains one single-family residential
structure. The property is zoned R-5 Residential. The site is currently accessed by a private
driveway and roadway easement that crosses the neighboring parcels to the west and
connects to 132nd Avenue SE. The surrounding uses include single-family residential to the
north, the Kendall Ridge housing development to the west and south, and State Highway 18 to
the east. Raceway Mini Storage is directly northwest of the site.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing single-family home and to subdivide the site
into 17 single-family lots. The project proposes one point of access to 133rd Avenue SE, which
is classified as a “Local Residential Street.” This roadway was previously constructed with the
Kendall Ridge development and provides connectivity to 132nd Avenue SE, an urban minor
arterial. The Kendall Ridge improvements reserved Tract K for future public roadway
connection to our site.
There are unique characteristics of the site that make approval of the requested deviation
necessary. The proposed connection to 133rd Avenue SE requires the construction of a
30-foot wide roadway section through Tract K within Kendall Ridge. The 30-foot roadway
section includes 22 feet of paved width, a 0.5-foot curb, and a 7.5-foot sidewalk. Tract K has a
width of 30 feet. Additionally, a wetland exists directly to the south of Tract K, which limits the
ability to grade the proposed roadway.
Proposed Deviations
Section 1.04 of the Design Standards requires justification for each design element deviation.
We have attempted to identify the specific standards that would apply to the proposed access,
and have provided explanations below to justify each of the deviations we are currently
proposing. Refer to Exhibit A for the Preliminary Plat Set.
DEV19-0057 Deviation Request Letter
Page 356 of 380
Mr. Steve Sturza, PE
December 13, 2019
2170933.10
Page 2 of 4
8. Maximum Slope Adjacent to Right-of-Way (COA Design Standards Chapter 10.01.3.1):
a. Functional Intent of the Design Element: The project proposes a retaining wall
along the south edge of Tract K to avoid grading within the wetland. This
retaining wall and sidewalk section will not meet the City of Auburn requirement in
Chapter 10.01.3.1 of the Design Standards, which shows that a 2-foot flat section
is required in property adjacent to the right-of-way before grading at a 2:1
maximum slope.
b. Safety Factors: The proposed retaining wall height does not exceed 30 inches, so
a guardrail is not required. The wall will be placed along the back of the sidewalk
adjacent to the wetland. The risk of a vehicle driving off this wall is very low
because there is a full height curb and gutter proposed within the roadway
section.
c. Operational Concerns: Granting this deviation will not cause any operational
concerns.
d. Maintenance Concerns: There are no maintenance concerns with granting this
deviation.
e. Liability Concerns: Granting of this deviation will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to any other property in the vicinity.
f. Capabilities and/or Efficiencies: The proposed retaining wall and sidewalk section
enable the offsite portion of Road A to be designed with vertical curves that meet
City of Auburn standards for a 30 mph design speed.
g. Design Life, Historical Performance, and Durability: The design life of the retaining
wall is expected to be the same as the sidewalk that it retains. The retaining wall
and sidewalk at this location were designed by a licensed structural engineer.
h. Aesthetic and Visual Impacts: This deviation will not have any adverse impacts to
the aesthetics of the site. The retaining wall will not be visible to any drivers on
the roadway or any pedestrians using the sidewalk.
i. Cost Effectiveness and Availability of any Replacement Components or Materials:
The retaining wall will be constructed with readily available materials and, if a
replacement is necessary, it will be relatively inexpensive compared to the rest of
the right-of-way improvements due to the short wall height.
j. Consistency with the Spirit and Purpose of the Corresponding Design Standard:
The proposed retaining wall and sidewalk section will not cause any safety
hazards or constructability issues.
k. Demonstrate that the Environment will not be Adversely Affected: The proposed
retaining wall and sidewalk section will have a positive impact on the environment
by maximizing the area of wetland retained in the natural state.
l. Supported by Published Industry Standards: The requested deviation is based on
sound engineering judgement and is supported by industry standards.
Page 357 of 380
Mr. Steve Sturza, PE
December 13, 2019
2170933.10
Page 3 of 4
9. Road A Offsite Sidewalk Section (COA Standard Detail T-15.1):
a. Functional Intent of the Design Element: The project proposes a retaining wall
along the south edge of Tract K to avoid grading within the wetland. This
retaining wall and sidewalk section will not meet City of Auburn Standard Detail
T-15.1 – Cement Concrete Sidewalk Without Landscape Strip.
b. Safety Factors: The proposed retaining wall height does not exceed 30 inches, so
a guardrail is not required. The wall will be placed along the back of the sidewalk
adjacent to the wetland. The risk of a vehicle driving off this wall is very low
because there is a full height curb and gutter proposed within the roadway
section.
c. Operational Concerns: Granting this deviation will not cause any operational
concerns.
d. Maintenance Concerns: There are no maintenance concerns with granting this
deviation.
e. Liability Concerns: Granting of this deviation will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to any other property in the vicinity.
f. Capabilities and/or Efficiencies: The proposed retaining wall and sidewalk section
enable the offsite portion of Road A to be designed with vertical curves that meet
City of Auburn standards for a 30 mph design speed.
g. Design Life, Historical Performance, and Durability: The design life of the retaining
wall is expected to be the same as the sidewalk that it retains. The retaining wall
and sidewalk at this location were designed by a licensed structural engineer.
h. Aesthetic and Visual Impacts: This deviation will not have any adverse impacts to
the aesthetics of the site. The retaining wall will not be visible to any drivers on
the roadway or any pedestrians using the sidewalk.
i. Cost Effectiveness and Availability of any Replacement Components or Materials:
The retaining wall will be constructed with readily available materials and, if a
replacement is necessary, it will be relatively inexpensive compared to the rest of
the right-of-way improvements due to the short wall height.
j. Consistency with the Spirit and Purpose of the Corresponding Design Standard:
The proposed retaining wall and sidewalk section will not cause any safety
hazards or constructability issues.
k. Demonstrate that the Environment will not be Adversely Affected: The proposed
retaining wall and sidewalk section will have a positive impact on the environment
by maximizing the area of wetland retained in the natural state.
l. Supported by Published Industry Standards: The requested deviation is based on
sound engineering judgement and is supported by industry standards.
Page 358 of 380
Mr. Steve Sturza, PE
December 13, 2019
2170933.10
Page 4 of 4
Because of the unique circumstances of this site and the magnitude of the required improvements,
we respectfully request the City’s approval of the proposed deviations.
We look forward to working with you as you proceed with our request. If you have any questions,
please call me at (253) 383-2422.
Sincerely,
J. Matthew Weber, PE
Principal
TDW/lsk
Enclosures
Q:\2017\2170933\WORDPROC\Letters\20191213 Ltr (Deviation Req-Sidewalk) 2170933.10.docx
12/30/2019
Page 359 of 380
NOTICE OF DECISION
July 22, 2020
VIA EMAIL
Ms. Sheri Greene
AHBL, Inc.
2215 N 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403
Re: Application No. VAR 18-0003
Administrative Variance for Summit at Kendall Ridge – Minimum Lot Area and
Minimum Lot Width
Dear Ms. Greene:
Attached is the City Planning Director’s or Designee’s official Decision regarding your
Administrative Variance request for reduced minimum lot area and minimum lot width. The
request is approved pursuant to the enclosed Staff Report.
Should you disagree with this decision, the decision may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner
as identified within the attached code, ACC 18.70.050.
If you have any questions regarding the decision or process, please contact Alexandria D
Teague, Planner II, at 253-288-4301 or ateague@auburnwa.gov.
Sincerely,
Jeff Dixon
Planning Services Manager
Community Development & Public Works Department
Enclosures: ACC 14.13.010 – Administrative Appeals
ACC 18.70.050 – Administrative Appeals
VAR18-0003 – Staff Report
Page 360 of 380
Administrative Variance – Summit at Kendall Ridge – VAR18-0003
Page 2 of 8
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
14.13.010 Administrative appeals.
Any administrative appeal of the project decision, combined with any environmental
determinations, which are provided by the city, shall be filed within 14 days after the notice of
the decision or after other notice that the decision has been made and is appealable. The city
shall extend the appeal period for an additional seven days, if state or city rules adopted
pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW allow public comment on a determination of nonsignificance
issued as part of an appealable project permit decision. (Ord. 4835 § 1, 1996.)
18.70.050 Administrative appeals.
Appeals from any administrative decision made under this title may be appealed to the hearing
examiner pursuant to Chapter 2.46 ACC.
A. Any person wishing to appeal an administrative decision shall first render in writing a
request for an administrative decision from the appropriate city official. The city official shall
issue in writing a decision within five working days of the written request.
B. If the requester seeks to appeal that decision to the hearing examiner, any such appeal shall
be filed with the planning director within 14 days of mailing the city’s written decision. The
city shall extend the appeal period for an additional seven days for appeals that are
accompanied by a final mitigated determination of nonsignificance or final EIS.
C. The planning director shall notify any other city official that may be affected by the appeal.
D. The appeal shall then be processed in the same manner as any other application for a
hearing examiner decision pursuant to Chapter 2.46 ACC.
E. The examiner shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to ACC 18.70.040 and consider any
facts pertinent to the appeal. The examiner may affirm the decision, remand for further
proceedings, or reverse the decision if the decision is:
1. In violation of constitutional provisions;
2. In excess of the authority of the official;
3. Made upon an unlawful procedure;
4. Affected by other error of law;
5. Clearly erroneous; or
6. Arbitrary or capricious.
Any party of record who feels the administrative decision is based on error of procedure, fact or
judgment, or the discovery of new evidence may file a written appeal with the Hearing Examiner
no later than August 5, 2020 by 5:00 pm (14 days of mailing the City’s written decision).
Appeals should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner, c/o Department of Community
Development, 25 W Main St., Auburn, WA 98001-4998.
Page 361 of 380
Administrative Variance – Summit at Kendall Ridge – VAR18-0003
Page 3 of 8
Administrative Variance
Summit at Kendall Ridge
Reduced Minimum Lot Area & Lot Width
VAR1 8-0003
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
Application Date: May 7, 2018 Issue Date: July 22, 2020 Applicant: Matt Weber, PE
AHBL, Inc.
2215 N 30th St., Suite 300
Tacoma, WA 98403
Sheri Greene
AHBL, Inc.
2215 N 30th St., Suite 300
Tacoma, WA 98403 Property Owner: Phil Mitchell
Mitchell Development II, LLC
910 Traffic Ave.
Sumner, WA 98390
Project Description: Request a reduction in the minimum lot area for proposed
lots no. 3, 4, and 7, and a reduction in the lot width for
proposed lots no. 4, 5, and 7 of the Summit at Kendall
Ridge preliminary plat. The required minimum lot area in
the R-5 zoning district is 4,500 square feet and the
minimum lot width is 50 feet. The request is to reduce the
minimum lot area and lot width, respectively, by less than
25%.
Proposed Location: The project site is located west of 132nd Ave. S and north
of SE 306th St., within NW¼ of Section 10, Township 21,
Range 5. King County Assessor Parcel Nos. 1021059059
and 1021059095.
King Co. Parcel Numbers: 1021059059 and 1021059095
Page 362 of 380
Administrative Variance – Summit at Kendall Ridge – VAR18-0003
Page 4 of 8
2017 Aerial Vicinity Map:
Subject Property and Adjacent Property Comprehensive Plan Designation, Zoning, and Land Use:
Comprehensive Plan
Designation Zoning Classification Current Land Use
Project Site Single-Family
Residential
R-5 Residential; Lea Hill
Overlay
Single family residence;
proposed 17-lot
preliminary plat
North
Single-Family
Residential; Light
Commercial
R-5 Residential; C1 Light
Commercial; Lea Hill
Overlay
Single-Family
Residences; Mini-
storage facility
South Single-Family
Residential
R-5 Residential; R-1
Residential; Lea Hill
Overlay
Single-Family
Residences
East Single-Family
Residential
R-5 Residential; Lea Hill
Overlay
Single-Family
Residences
West Single-Family
Residential
R-5 Residential; Lea Hill
Overlay
Single-Family
Residences
II. SEPA STATUS
Pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) 16.06.055 and WAC 197-11-800(6)(b), variances are
exempt from environmental review.
Page 363 of 380
Administrative Variance – Summit at Kendall Ridge – VAR18-0003
Page 5 of 8
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Matt Weber and Sheri Green, representing Phil Mitchell of Mitchell Development II, LLC
(“Applicant”), applied for an Administrative Variance to reduce the minimum lot area of
proposed lots no. 3, 4, and 7, and to reduce the minimum lot width for proposed lots no.
4, 5, and 7 within the Summit of Kendall Ridge preliminary plat (the “Project”).
2. The area constituting the preliminary plat (the “Subject Property”) is an approximately
4.5-acre site that is currently under review as a preliminary plat application (PLT18-
0001) and has not been approved by the Hearing Examiner. The administrative variance
decision will be incorporated into staffs’ recommendation to the Hearing Examiner.
3. The subject property is zoned R-5, Residential Zone – Five Dwelling Units per Acre.
4. Per ACC Table 18.07.030(C) the minimum lot area per dwelling unit in the R-5 zone is
4,500 square feet (sq. ft.). The Applicant has requested a reduction of minimum lot area
for three lots. The maximum requested reduction in lot area equates to approximately
6% from the minimum lot area requirement of 4,500 sq. ft. A 6% reduction from 4,500
sq. ft. equates to approximately 4,230 sq. ft.
5. Per ACC Table 18.07.030(D) the minimum lot area per dwelling unit in the R-5 zone is
50 feet (ft.). The applicant has requested a reduction in the minimum lot width for three
lots. The maximum requested reduction in lot width equates to 20% from the minimum
lot width requirement of 50 ft. A 20% reduction from 50 ft. is approximately 40 ft.
6. Per to ACC 18.70.015(A)(1), an Administrative Variance for Lot Area and Lot Width
respectively may not exceed 25% of the dimensional standard of the underlying zoning
requirement.
7. ACC 18.04.540 lot area is defined as:
“…the total horizontal area within the boundary lines of a lot; however, the area
contained in access easements, tracts or panhandles shall not be included in the lot
area or any other lot size computation.”
8. Per ACC 18.04.560(B) lot width is defined as: “…the horizontal distance between
the lot side lines measured at right angles to the line comprising the depth of the lot at a
point midway between the lot front line and the lot rear line.”
9. The Applicant, on behalf of the Summit at Kendall Ridge preliminary plat requests this
Administrative Variance for the following reason:
The Subject Property is encumbered by a number of critical areas regulated per Chapter 16.10
of Auburn City Code, including a wetland and its associated buffer, a geologic hazard (steep
slopes). Due to aforementioned site constraints the Project is unable to meet the minimum
density requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Title 18). Per ACC Table 18.07.030(A) and (B)
the Project is required to meet a base density of 24 dwelling units and a minimum density of 18
dwelling units. In the preliminary plat application, the Applicant has requested to deviate from
the minimum density requirement of 18 dwelling units to a minimum density of 17 dwelling units.
The Project however, cannot meet the density of 17 dwelling units without an administrative
variance from the dimensional standards (i.e. lot area and lot width) of the R-5 zone.
Page 364 of 380
Administrative Variance – Summit at Kendall Ridge – VAR18-0003
Page 6 of 8
10. The Planning Director or designee may approve or modify and approve an application
for an Administrative Variance if the application satisfies ACC 18.70.015(A)(1)(a),
“Applicability”, and one or more of the approval criterion specified in ACC Section
18.70.015(A)(1)(b), “Criteria”. See the following “Conclusions” section.
11. As provided in ACC 18.70.015(B), in authorizing an Administrative Variance, the
Planning Director may attach such conditions regarding the location, character and other
features of the proposed structure or use as he/she may deem necessary to carry out
the intent and purpose of this title and in the public interest.
12. As provided in ACC 18.70.015(C), a variance so authorized shall become void after the
expiration of one year, or longer period if specified at the time of issuance, if no building
permit, occupancy permit or business registration has been issued in accordance with
the plans for which such variance was authorized. The Planning Director may extend the
period of variance authorization for one additional year upon a finding that there has
been no basic change in pertinent conditions surrounding the property at the time of the
original application.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
As indicated above, the City’s Administrative Variance regulations as detailed in ACC
18.70.015(A)(1)(b) provide certain approval criteria. What follows are the criteria (in
italics), the Applicant’s response, and Staff’s analysis of how the proposal compares to the
criteria:
1. Pursuant to ACC Section 18.70.015(A)(1)(b)(i): That the variance, if granted, will not
alter the character of the neighborhood, or be detrimental to surrounding properties in
which the lot is located.
Staff Analysis:
The proposed reduction in the minimum lot area and lot width will not significantly alter
the character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to the surrounding properties. The
surrounding properties include a mix of residential densities including a 106-lot
subdivision to the southwest, Kendall Ridge, that features lots ranging in size from
approximately 3,400 sq. ft. to 4,500 sq. ft. Similarly, the lot widths of the Kendall Ridge
plat range in size from approximately 40 ft. to 50 ft. While the Kendall Ridge preliminary
plat was approved in King County and subsequent received final plat approval following
annexation into the City of Auburn, the Applicant’s request to reduce the lot areas of
proposed lots no. 3, 4, and 7 to approx. 4,370, 4,464, and 4,438 sq. ft. respectively, is
analogous to the lot areas of the Kendall Ridge Plat. Additionally, the Applicant’s request
to reduce lot area of proposed lots no. 4, 5, and 7 to approx. 40 ft., 45.5 ft., and 46.5 ft.
respectively, is also analogous to the lot widths of the Kendall Ridge Plat.
Staff finds the request meets this criterion. While the criteria in ACC 18.70.015(A)(1)(b)
provide that only one criterion must be met, for completeness the other criteria are
addressed as follows.
2. ACC Section 18.70.015(A)(1)(b)(ii): That the special circumstances and conditions
associated with the variance are not a result of the actions of the applicant.
Page 365 of 380
Administrative Variance – Summit at Kendall Ridge – VAR18-0003
Page 7 of 8
Staff Analysis:
The Subject Property is encumbered by a number of critical areas regulated per Chapter
16.10 of Auburn City Code, including a wetland and its associated buffer and a geologic
hazard (steep slopes). The Project is unable to meet the minimum density requirements
of Title 18 and as a result, the Applicant has requested to deviate from the minimum
density requirement of 18 dwelling units to a minimum density of 17 dwelling units per
acre. The Project cannot meet the density of 17 dwelling units without an administrative
variance from the dimensional standards (i.e. lot area and lot width) of the R-5 zone.
Staff finds the request meets this criterion.
3. ACC Section 18.70.015(A)(1)(b)(iii): Literal interpretation of the provisions of this title
would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same
zoning district.
Staff Analysis:
Approving this administrative variance would provide the Applicant with similar privileges
as other properties in the surrounding area. Lots within the Kendall Ridge plat directly
southwest of the Projectfeature lots ranging in size from approximately 3,400 sq. ft. to
4,500 sq. ft. and lots widths of approximately 40 ft. to 50 ft.
Additionally, the Administrative Variance is within the 25% threshold for an
administrative variance for lot area and lot width respectively. Other properties within
the R-5 zoning district have the option of applying for an Administrative Variance to
reduce certain development standards, such as average lot area, lot width, etc. (ACC
18.70.015(A)(1)). Therefore, literal interpretation of the Zoning Code would deprive the
Applicant of rights available to other R-5 zoned properties within the City.
Staff finds the request meets this criterion.
4. ACC Section 18.70.015(A)(1)(b)(iv): The approval of the variance will be consistent with
the purpose of this title and the zoning district in which the property is located.
Staff Analysis:
The Administrative Variance is consistent with the intent of the R-5 zone. The requested
reduction in the minimum lot area and lot width is within the guidelines of ACC 18.70.015
(Administrative Variance).
Staff finds the request meets this criterion.
STAFF DECISION
APPROVED, WITH CONDITIONS as the proposal satisfies ACC 18.70.015(A)(1)(a),
“Applicability”, and satisfies one or more of the approval criterion specified in ACC
Section 18.70.015(A)(1)(b), “Criteria”.
Page 366 of 380
Administrative Variance – Summit at Kendall Ridge – VAR18-0003
Page 8 of 8
V. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Approval of this Administrative Variance is based upon compliance with the project
description as provided in the application submitted May 7, 2018 and the Conditions of
Approval set forth below. Any deviations from the project description, exhibits, timing or
conditions must be reviewed and approved by the City of Auburn for conformity with this
approval. Any change from these may require approval of changes to the permit and/or
environmental review.
1. Upon the Planning Director’s or designee’s signature, the Administrative Variance shall
be valid for the life of the approved preliminary plat. The variance shall expire upon
expiration of the approved preliminary plat, unless extended. The Director or designee
may extend the period of administrative variance authorization upon a finding that there
has been no basic change in pertinent conditions surrounding the property at the time
of the original application.
2. This Administrative Variance approves a reduction in lot area for proposed lots no. 3, 4,
and 7 to reduce the lot areas of proposed lots no. 3, 4, and 7 from 4,500 sq. ft., and
reduce the lot widths of proposed lots no. 4, 5, and 7 from 50 ft. to the following below:
Approx. Lot Area
(sq. ft.)
Approx. Lot Width
(feet)
Proposed Lot
No. 3 4,370 N/A
Proposed Lot
No. 4 4,464 40
Proposed Lot
No. 5 N/A 45.5
Proposed Lot
No. 7 4,438 46.5
APPROVAL
Prepared by:
Alexandria D. Teague, AICP, Planner II DATE
Department of Community Development
Reviewed by:
Dustin Lawrence, AICP, Senior Planner DATE
Department of Community Development
Page 367 of 380
EXHIBIT 17
Page 368 of 380
Page 369 of 380
Page 370 of 380
Page 371 of 380
Page 372 of 380
Page 373 of 380
Page 374 of 380
Page 375 of 380
Page 376 of 380
Page 377 of 380
Page 378 of 380
Page 379 of 380
Page 380 of 380