Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6990ORDINANCE NO. 6990 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO PLANNING; ADOPTING THE 2025 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS AND PLAN MAP AMENDMENT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 36.70A RCW AND ADOPTING A CORRESPONDING REZONE WHEREAS, since 1986 the City of Auburn has maintained a Comprehensive Plan, which has been periodically updated and reaffirmed by the Auburn City Council, that includes a Map establishing the location of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations throughout the City; and WHEREAS, Chapter 36.70A Revised Code of Washington (RCW) requires cities to take legislative action to periodically review and revise their Comprehensive Plans and development regulations to ensure continued compliance with State planning requirements under the Growth Management Act (GMA); and WHEREAS, on December 16, 2024, the City Council adopted an updated Comprehensive Plan by Ordinance No. 6960; and WHEREAS, the City of Auburn received one Privately -initiated Map Amendment and associated Rezone for the 2025 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments (Auburn School District, City File No. CPA25-0004); and WHEREAS, to maintain consistency between the City's Zoning Map and its Comprehensive Plan, the Privately -initiated Map Amendment (CPA25-0004) has an associated Rezone (Zoning Map Amendment); and Ordinance No. 6990 November 13, 2025 Page 1 of 5 Rev. 2024 WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 36.70A RCW the Privately -initiated Map Amendment was transmitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services Division for a 60-day review period ending October 5, 2025; and WHEREAS, the City initiated seven (7) Text Amendments (City File No. CPA25- 0003) and one Map Amendment (City File No. CPA25-0005); and WHEREAS, five (5) of the seven (7) City -initiated Text Amendments amend the Capital Facilities Plans for the Auburn School District, Dieringer School District, Federal Way Public Schools, Kent School District, and City of Auburn; and WHEREAS, two (2) of the seven (7) City -initiated Text Amendments amend the Housing Element and Housing Needs Assessment, respectively; and WHEREAS, the City -'initiated Map Amendment, CPA25-0005, redesignates 23 parcels to Residential Neighborhood Two that were inadvertently designated Public/Quasi-Public as a part of the land use designation process during the 2024 Periodic Update to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by Ord. No. 6960. City - initiated Map Amendment (CPA25-0005) does not have an associated Rezone; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 36.70A RCW the proposed City -initiated Amendments for were transmitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services Division, for a 60-day review period ending October 21, 2025; and WHEREAS, the 2025 Annual Amendments (both City -initiated and Privately - initiated) were processed by the Department of Community Development during the 2025 Annual Amendment Cycle; and -------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6990 November 13, 2025 Page 2 of 5 Rev. 2024 WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of the 2025 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments were considered in accordance with the procedures of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) under City File Nos. SEP25-0010 (Auburn School District Middle School No. 5) and SEP25-0013 (City -initiated Amendments) were determined to have no probable significant adverse environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, after proper notice published in the City's official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearings, the Auburn Planning Commission on October 21, 2025, conducted a Public Hearing on the proposed amendments, heard and considered public testimony, viewed the evidence and exhibits presented, and made recommendations to the City Council on the proposed 2025 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments; and WHEREAS, on November 24, 2025, the Auburn City Council reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. Privately -initiated Map Amendment, CPA25-0004, as set forth in Exhibit A, is adopted. The Private -initiated Map Amendment and Rezone amends the Comprehensive Land Use Map for fifteen (15) parcels from Neighborhood Residential Two to Public/Quasi-Public and to rezone fourteen (14) of the parcels from Lakeland Hills South PUD to P-1 Public Use District one (1) parcel from R-2 Residential Low to P-1 Public Use District, to build a new middle school for the Auburn School District. The written findings outlined in the October 6, 2025, staff report adopted by the Planning Commission and recommended to Council as set forth in Exhibit B, are adopted. Ordinance No. 6990 November 13, 2025 Page 3 of 5 Rev. 2024 Section 2. City -initiated Amendments, City File Nos. CPA25-0003 and CPA25- 0005, as set forth in Exhibit C, are adopted. The City -initiated Text Amendment, CPA25- 0003, updates the Capital Facilities Plans for the School Districts which serve the, student population within the City of Auburn, updates to the Capital Facilities Element, Housing Element, and Housing Needs Assessment. The City -initiated Text Amendment, CPA25- 0005, amends the Comprehensive Land Use Map which redesignates 23 parcels to Residential Neighborhood Two that were inadvertently designated Public/Quasi-Public as a part of the land use designation process during the 2024 Periodic Update to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by Ord. No. 6960. The written findings outlined in the October 3, 2025, staff report adopted by the Planning Commission and recommended to Council, as set forth in Exhibit D, are adopted. Section 3. Implementation. The Mayor is authorized to implement the administrative procedures necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation. Section 4. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this Ordinance, or the invalidity of the application of it to any person or circumstance, will not affect the validity of the remainder of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances. Ordinance No. 6990 November 13, 2025 Page 4 of 5 Rev. 2024 Exhibit A CPA25-0004 Land Use Map Amendment EXISTING i i l L----------------- j IMPOSED] i i Neighborhood Residential Two(Existing) ❑ project Area 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 PublldQuasl-Public (Proposed) ® Existing Land Use Miles Commercial ® Proposed land Use Neighborhood Residential Three Auburn City Limits Printed On: Bl2712025 Map ID- 6349 Information shown n for general reference purposes only and does not necessarily represent exact geographfa or Cartography data as mapped, The City of Auburn makes no warranty as to Its accuracy. �CPA25-0004 Zoning Map Amendment EXISTING i i r ---- ------------ tf f r I , ' � I r PROPOSED I r -_-_----------� ri r r r I + ,I ---------- Open Space ❑ Parcels to be removed from Lakeland Hills S PUS Boundary 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 R-2 Residential Low ® Existing Zoning Miles ] P-1 Public Use DistnCt ® Proposed Zoning Lakeland Hills South PUS r] Auburn ❑ty Limits Printed On,. 8y27aO25 r ■ 1 Map ID! 6349 Information shown is for general. reference purposes only and does not neccmartl.y represent exact geographfc or cartographic data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes no warranty as to Its accuracy. PLANNING COMMISSION AUBURN AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT VALUE PRIVATE -INITIATED LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT IS E R V I C E CPA25-0004 I ENVIRONMENT E C O N O M Y PRESENTED BY CHARACTER DINAH REED, SENIOR PLANNER SUSTAINAB ILITY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER21,2025 WELLNESS CELEBRATION • Private initiated map amendment • Change land use designation & rezone • City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6988 City Limits SUMMER-TAPPS HWY E Un co Pierce County Vicinity Map SERVICE . ENVIRONMENT . ECONOMY . CHARACTER . SUSTAINABILITY . WELLNESS . CELEBRATION i�lihwqdl PROPOSED Public/Quasi Public PROPOSED ------------------- SERVICE . ENVIRONMENT . ECONOMY . CHARACTER . SUSTAINABILITY 9 WELLNESS . CELEBRATION PROPOSED r P-1 Public Use District for all 15 parcels PROPOSED ---------- SERVICE . ENVIRONMENT . ECONOMY . CHARACTER . SUSTAINABILITY . WELLNESS . CELEBRATION Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council approval of the Auburn School District request for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment (CPA25-0004) to change the map designation of fifteen Pierce County parcels from Neighborhood Residential Two to Public/Quasi Public, and to rezone fourteen parcels from Lakeland Hills South Special Plan Area PUD to P-1 Public Use District and to rezone one parcel from R-2 Residential Low to P-1 Public Use District. SERVICE . ENVIRONMENT . ECONOMY . CHARACTER . SUSTAINABILITY . WELLNESS . CELEBRATION Thank you for your time. Any questions? AUBURN VALUES S E R V I C E ENVIRONMENT E C O N O M Y CHARACTER SUSTAINAB ILITY W E L L N E S S CELEBRATION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AGENDA SUBJECT/TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Rezone CITY FILE NO.: CPA25-0004 APPLICANT: Camie Anderson, President and Managing Principal Shockey Planning Group 1426 35th Street Everett, WA 98201 OWNER: Jeff Grose, Executive Director -Capital Projects Auburn School District No. 408 915 4th Street NE Auburn, WA 98002 REQUEST: Comprehensive Land Use Map Amendment of fifteen (15) parcels from Neighborhood Residential Two to Public/Quasi-Public and to Rezone fourteen (14) parcels from Lakeland Hills South Special Plan Area - PUD to P-1 Public Use District and one (1) parcel from R-2 Residential Low to P-1 Public Use District. LOCATION: Located in the Lakeland Hills south area, south of the intersection of Lake Tapps Parkway SE and Sumner Tapps Highway E. The subject parcels include the following Pierce County Parcel Nos: 0520053001, 0520053006, 0520053013,0520053014,0520053015,0520053016, 0520053034, 0520053035, 0520053036, 0520053040, 0520053041, 0520053046, 0520053055, 0520053060, and 0520054081. The Auburn School District's compilation of parcels is bisected by Pierce County parcel 0520053025, which is a pipeline/powerline right-of-way owned by Northwest Pipeline Corporation, and parcel 0520053072, containing a water tower owned by the City of Bonney Lake. These two parcels are not a part of the application. NOTIFICATION: Hearing Notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 300 feet, published in the Seattle Times, posted on the City's Land Use Notice webpage and physically posted at City Hall and City Hall Annex on October 6, 2025. The property is also posted on site. HEARING DATE: October 21, 2025 Staff Member: Reed Date: October 6, 2025 SEPA STATUS: An application was received on June 3, 2025. A SEPA Environmental Checklist — Non Project Action, and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment and Rezone Exhibit were submitted and reviewed with the application. A DNS using the Optional process was issued on September 23, 2025, with the appeal period expiring on October 21, 2025. EXISTING LAND USE: Neighborhood Residential Two EXISTING ZONING: Lakeland Hills South Special Plan Area - PUD (14 parcels), R-2 Residential Low (1 parcel) STAFF: Dinah Reed, Senior Planner, Dept. of Community Development STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission to deliberate and take action to recommend to City Council approval of the Auburn School District request for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment to change the map designation of fifteen Pierce County parcels from Neighborhood Residential Two to Public/Quasi-Public and to rezone fourteen parcels from Lakeland Hills South Special Plan Area - PUD to P-1 Public Use District and to rezone one parcel from R-2 Residential Low to P-1 Public Use District. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Camie Anderson, President and Managing Principal of Shockey Planning Group (Applicant), on behalf of Auburn School District (District), submitted a major amendmentto the Lakeland Hill South PUD Boundary in conjunction with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment and Rezones. The application was submitted on June 3, 2025. The PUD boundary amendment was approved by the City Council and adopted by Ordinance No. 6988 on September 15, 2025. 2. In accordance with Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.76.090( B) the application submittal included an environmental checklist, a conceptual design of the public facilities, and a site plan. 3. The District owns 15 contiguous parcels, totaling approximately 46 acres, located south of the intersection of Lake Tapps Parkway SE and SumnerTapps Highway E in the City of Auburn. The area was created to provide enhanced flexibility and alternative residential development for a mix of residential densities; however, the site is no longer intended for residential development. The District intends to develop these parcels into a new middle school. 4. City File No. CPA25-0004 includes amending the 2024 Comprehensive Plan to redesignate all the subject parcels to Public/Quasi-Public use to support the development of the new middle school, and to rezone 14 of the subject parcels from Lakeland Hills South Special Plan Area - PUD zoning to P-1 Public Use District and one parcel from R-2 Residential Low to P-1 Public Use District. Page 2 of 10 Staff Member: Reed Date: October 6, 2025 5. The site is bordered to the north by Four Lakes Apartments, to the east by vacant land owned by the Auburn School District, to the south by vacant land owned by Puget Sound Energy, and the west by undeveloped/vegetated land and a large parcel with a single family home. 6. The current Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning classification and current land uses of the sites and surrounding properties are as follows: Comprehensive Plan Zoning classification Current Land Use Designation Neighborhood Lakeland Hills South Project Residential Two Special Plan — PUD & R-2 Vacant Site Residential Low Neighborhood R-2 Residential Low Multifamily North Residential Two Moderate Density Single Suburban Residential Vacant South Family (Unincorporated (Unincorporated Pierce Pierce County) County) Neighborhood Lakeland Hills South PUD East Vacant Residential Two Neighborhood Environmentally sensitive West Residential Two & Lakeland Hills South PUD parcels/Vacant Public/Quasi -Public Vicinity Map ME ■a ...dfl^� IBC I.. - Page 3 of 10 Staff Member: Reed Date: October 6, 2025 LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT CPA25-0004 Land Use Map Amendment EXISTING a f- ---------------- PROPOSED i-- - ---' i L-----_-.—__�� "J MHEwM1wE osnle.tiMT.o IGkM] ❑w�r^2^ 0 -0-r 0.3 0.3 nttp.mautlAm�l ®ngiM iaz um trees �xeb'aenme�� ®n mc��r u��n wo omp,n.sms O ZONING MAP AMENDMENT CPA25-0004 Zoning Map Amendment EXS57ING - ------ COPOSED' ' { __-__.__L_-_-------___- •u�w� ❑Po rRm �ase�e�oxiitsrvo Bw.�ery ' ® a Miles .�.b wiuswnww _• OH uo.n ni��i.en.+tr ws . «pMee�m 7. Chapter 14.22, "Comprehensive Plan" of the Auburn City Code (ACC) provides the city's laws for amending the Comprehensive Plan. Amendments can be initiated by the City of Auburn (city -initiated) and by private citizens (privately -initiated). 8. RCW 36.70A.130 (GMA) provides for annual amendments to locally adopted comprehensive plans. Except in limited circumstances as provided for in State law, Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be considered by the city or county legislative body no more frequently than once per calendar year. The annual limitation and exceptions are also restated in city code at ACC 14.22.060. 9. Per Chapter 14.22 ACC), privately -initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan shall have at least one public hearing before the Planning Commission who then forward a recommendation to the City Council. City Council consideration and action on the amendments generally occurs prior to the end of the year. 10. ACC 18.68.030(A)(2) states A "Site -Specific Rezone, Category 2" is an application requesting to rezone a property to a zoning district that does not implement (i.e., is in conflict with) the existing comprehensive plan land use map designation applied to the property, and a concurrent comprehensive plan amendment application must be submitted. This type of rezone shall be processed as a legislative nonproject decision, consistent with ACC 14.03.060. Page 4 of 10 Staff Member: Reed Date: October 6, 2025 11. Chapter 14.22 ACC outlines the process for submittal of private initiated amendments and the processing of Comprehensive Plan amendments as follows: "ACC Section 14.22.100 A. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on all proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be given pursuant to Chapter 1.27 ACC and, at a minimum, include the following: 1. For site -specific plan map amendments: a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing; b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet of the proposed map amendment request, not less than 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing; B. Notwithstanding the above, the director may expand the minimum noticing provisions noted above as deemed necessary. C. Planning Commission Recommendation. The planning commission shall conduct a public hearing on all potential comprehensive plan amendments and shall make and forward a recommendation on each to the city council. The planning commission shall adopt written findings and make a recommendation consistent with those findings to the city council. D. The city council, if it elects to amend the comprehensive plan, shall adopt written findings and adopt said amendments by ordinance. E. State Review. All comprehensive plan amendments considered by the planning commission shall be forwarded for state agency review consistent with RCW 36.70A.106. F. Any appeal of an amendment to the comprehensive plan shall be made in accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.)" 12. The intent of the "P-1 Public Use Zone" states, The P-1 Public Use Zone is intended to provide for the appropriate location and development of public uses that serve the cultural, educational, recreational, and public service needs of the community. A broader list of public and quasi -public uses may be allowed to develop. 13. The Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment application seeks to change the designation of fifteen (15) parcels, Pierce County Parcel Nos. 0520053001, 0520053006, 0520053013, 0520053014, 0520053015, 0520053016,0520053034,0520053035,0520053036, 0520053040, 0520053041, 0520053046, 0520053055, 0520053060, and 0520054081 from Neighborhood Residential Two to Public/Quasi-Public. CRITERIA FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS 14. The City's Comprehensive Plan contains the following objectives and policy guidance that support the redesignation to Public/Quasi-Public Designation as follows: Land Use (LU)-111 The primary purpose of this designation is to address public needs while taking advantage of synergies with the adjacent areas where they are sited. LU-112 Appropriate uses for this designation include facilities that serve the needs of the larger community such as public schools, active parks, city operated municipal facilities, police stations, and fire stations. Page 5 of 10 Staff Member: Reed Date: October 6, 2025 • LU-113 Innovative strategies to integrate the uses and sites into the areas where they are sited is encouraged. These strategies should maximize use of the site while minimizing fiscal impacts and impacts to adjacent areas. • LU-119 Coordination with other Institutional entities is essential in the implementation of the Public/Quasi-Public land use designation. • LU-127 Build on partnerships with school districts to expand public use of school facilities for recreation and exercise, and to improve public access to facilities for this purpose, as appropriate. • Capital Facilities (CF)-2 Encourage development where new public facilities can be provided in an efficient manner. • CF-5 Provide additional public facility capacity when existing facilities are used to their maximum level of efficiency (consistent with adopted standards for level of service). • C-10 Establish land use patterns that optimize the use of public facilities. 15. The purpose of the City's Comprehensive Plan document is to provide a policy basis for the zoning changes to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance are consistent as required by the following city code provision: "ACC 14.22.050 Conformance and consistency. The zoning, land division and other development codes contained or referenced within Auburn City Code shall be consistent with and implement the intent of the comprehensive plan. Capital budget decisions shall be made in conformity with the comprehensive plan. " 16. The City code provides certain criteria for decision -making for comprehensive plan amendments as follows: "ACC 14.22.110 Decision criteria for plan amendments. A. The comprehensive plan was developed and adopted after significant study and public participation. The principles, goals, objectives and policies contained therein shall be granted substantial weight when considering proposed amendment. Therefore, the burden of proof forjustifying a proposed amendment rests with the applicant, who must demonstrate that the request complies with and/or relates to the following decision criteria, 1 — 6 as outlined in the "Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Related - Conclusions". CONFORMANCE WITH THE CRITERIA FOR PLAN AMENDMENTS (criteria in italics) 17. The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent, Staff analysis: The proposed change from Neighborhood Residential Two to Public/Quasi-Public aligns with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element and Capital Facilities Element of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan 2024 update, adopted on December 16, 2024. The proposed change is consistent with goals and policies to support a new middle school as intended by the site. 18. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased; Staff analysis: The development will include frontage improvements per city code, construction of a single -land roundabout at Sumner Tapps Highway E and the middle school access, including a right Page 6 of 10 Staff Member: Reed Date: October 6, 2025 turn lane into the school, new gated driveway at 16t" Street E and Sumner Tapps Highway E Easement for school bus access. Additionally, an estimated $518,056 traffic impact fee will be assessed for the new development. 19. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid, Staff analysis: The current land use designation is Neighborhood Residential Two which implements residential uses. The District acquired 15 parcels of the subject site area with the intention of building a new middle school. Amending the 2024 Comprehensive Plan to redesignate 15 parcels to Public/Quasi-Public which implements the P-1 Public Use District which will allow for the development of Middle School No. 5. 20. A determination of change or lack of change in conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the specific section of the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed amendment, Staff analysis: The subject site area was originally intended for the development of a variety of housing densities, however, the site is now needed for the development of a new middle school. The District serves a rapidly growing population across Auburn, Algona, Pacific and unincorporated King County. The comprehensive plan land use map amendment request supports the development of Middle School No. 5, which is anticipated to be completed and operational in 2027. 21. If applicable, a determination that a question of consistency exists between the comprehensive plan and Chapter 36.70A RC W, the countywide planning policies for either King and/or Pierce County, as appropriate, and Vision 2050; Staff analysis: The change, if approved, would continue to be consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies of Pierce County and "Vision 2050: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region". The proposal is consistent because it provides land suitable for a new middle school. Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies states in, Education Policy ED-3 "Coordinate with other institutions or governmental entities responsible for providing education services, in order to ensure the provision of educational facilities along with other necessary public facilities and services and long with established and planned growth patterns through: 3.1 The capital facilities plan element; 3.2 The land use element; 3.3 School Site location decisions; 3.4 Coordination and, if necessary, formal interlocal agreements between school districts and other governmental entities exercising land use planning, regulation, and capital improvement planning functions..." 22. If the request is to change the land use designation of a specific property on the comprehensive land use map, the applicant must demonstrate one of the following. a. The current land use designation was clearly made in error or due to an oversight, b. The proposed land use designation is adjacent to property having a similar or compatible designation, or other conditions are present to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties; c. There has been a change in conditions since the current land use designation came into effect. Page 7 of 10 Staff Member: Reed Date: October 6, 2025 Staff analysis: The proposal is consistent with findings (b) and (c). The subject parcels are bordered by properties with the Neighborhood Residential Two land use designation to the north, east and west within the City of Auburn. Land to the south is unincorporated Pierce County and the land use designation is Suburban Residential. It is appropriate to have a new middle school that is surrounded by residential development providing opportunities for recreational and sport opportunities, and vehicular and pedestrian connections. CONFORMANCE WITH THE CRITERIA FOR REZONE (criteria in italics) 23. The rezone implements the policies of the comprehensive plan; or. Staff analysis: Rezoning the fifteen parcels to P-1 Public Use supports the policies of the Comprehensive Plan by aligning the rezone with the request for the land use redesignation of Public/Quasi-Public. 24. The rezone is necessary due to a substantial change in circumstances since the current zoning; and Staff analysis: The proposed rezone is necessary for the future proposal for a new middle school development. Schools are not an allowed use in the existing zoning of R-2, Residential Low zone. 25. The rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff analysis: As stated in the applicant's narrative, the District serves a rapidly growing population across Auburn, Algona, Pacific and unincorporated King County. The rezone request supports the development of Middle School No. 5, which is anticipated to be completed and operational in 2027. The new middle school will serve grades 6 through 8 and accommodate approximately 800 students in permanent facilities, along with an additional250 students in 10 portable classrooms. New recreational fields for track and field, lacrosse, football, soccer, softball and baseball are also planned for the development. The conceptual site plan for the school is sensitive to development needs and protection of the wetland critical area on the west side of the site, as well as retention of dense tree populations along the west, south, and eastern boundaries. The new school will increase student capacity, meet current educational and facility standards, incorporate advanced technology systems, and expand opportunities for community use, providing for public health, safety, and welfare of the students and residents of the City of Auburn and Auburn School District. PROCEDURAL STEPS 26. The City of Auburn established a June 15, 2025 submittal deadline for comprehensive plan amendments for the year 2025. 27. The proposed map amendment and rezone was presented to the Planning Commission at a special meeting on September 16, 2025. Page 8 of 10 Staff Member: Reed Date: October 6, 2025 28. Pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A, the map amendment was transmitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce on August 6, 2025. The 60-day notice period ended on October 5, 2025. 29. ACC 14.22.100 outlines the public hearing requirements by planning commission. Amendments to the Periodic Comprehensive Plan generally comply with "area -wide" requirements. A. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on all proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be given pursuant to Chapter 1.27 ACC and, at a minimum, include the following: 1. For site -specific plan map amendments: a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing; b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet of the proposed map amendment request, not less than 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing; 2. For area -wide plan map amendments: a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing; b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within the area subject to the proposed amendment; c. Notice shall be posted in at least two conspicuous locations in the area subject to the proposed amendment not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of the public hearing. B. Notwithstanding the above, the director may expand the minimum noticing provisions noted above as deemed necessary. C. Planning Commission Recommendation. The planning commission shall conduct a public hearing on all potential comprehensive plan amendments and shall make and forward a recommendation on each to the city council. The planning commission shall adopt written findings and make a recommendation consistent with those findings to the city council. D. The city council, if it elects to amend the comprehensive plan, shall adopt written findings and adopt said amendments by ordinance. E. State Review. All comprehensive plan amendments considered by the planning commission shall be forwarded for state agency review consistent with RCW 36.70A.106. F. Any appeal of an amendment to the comprehensive plan shall be made in accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW. 30. A Notice of Public Hearing (NOH) was issued on October 6, 2025. Pursuant to ACC 14.22.100, the following methods of noticing for the Planning Commission public hearing were conducted: a. The NOH was published in the Seattle Times on October 6, 2025. b. The NOH was posted in two general public locations (City Hall and City Annex). c. The NOH was posted on City's Public Land Use Notice webpage. 31. A Determination of Non -Significance (DNS), the environmental review decision required under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), for the application for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Rezone was noticed under City File No. SEP25-0010 on September 24, 2025. 32. A public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission on October 21, 2025. Page 9 of 10 Staff Member: Reed Date: October 6, 2025 EXHIBITS 1. PowerPoint Presentation 2. Land Use Map Amendment 3. Zoning Map Amendment 4. Auburn School District Application 5. Public Comments Page 10 of 10 CITN OF AUBURN CITY OF AUBURN M BuildingPermit.com KkSHINON GT Land Use Application #1661262 - ASD-MS5 COMP PLAN & REZONE Applicant First Name Last Name Company Name Jeff Grose Auburn School District Number Street Apartment or Suite Number E-mail Address 915 4th Street NE jgrose(cb-auburn.wednet.edu City State Zip Phone Number Extension Auburn WA 98002 (253) 931-4826 Contractor Company Name Number Street Apartment or Suite Number City State Zip Phone Number Extension State License Number License Expiration Date UBI # E-mail Address Project Location Number Street Floor Number Suite or Room Number 0 City Zip Code County Parcel Number AUBURN 0520054081 Associated Building Permit Number Tenant Name PUD1658073; vacant land Additional Information (i.e. equipment location or special instructions). Work Location Property Owner First Name Last Name or Company Name AUBURN SCHOOL DIST 408 Number Street Apartment or Suite Number 915 FOURTH ST NE City State Zip AUBURN WA 98002 Certification Statement - The applicant states: I certify that I am the owner of this property or the owner's authorized agent. If acting as an authorized agent, I further certify that I have full power and authority to file this application and to perform, on behalf of the owner, all acts required to enable the jurisdiction to process and review such application. I have furnished true and correct information. I will comply with all provisions of law and ordinance governing this type of application. If the scope of work requires a licensed contractor to perform the work, the information will be provided prior to permit issuance. Date Submitted: 6/3/2025 Submitted By: Jeff Grose Page 1 of 2 UTN OF AUBURN CITY OF AUBURN M BuildingPermit.com WASHINGTON Land Use Application #1661262 - ASD-MS5 COMP PLAN & REZONE Project Contact Company Name: Shockey Planning Group Name: Camie Anderson Email: canderson@shockeyplanning.com Address: 1426 35th Street Phone #: (425) 258-9308 Everett WA 98201 Project Type Activity Type Scope of Work New None Comprehensive Plan Amendment Project ASD-MS5 COMP PLAN & REZONE Name: Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Under the Imagine Auburn Comprehensive Plan Update 2024, the current land use designation for the subject site is Neighborhood Residential Two, which is intended to accommodate a variety of residential dwelling types. This category includes R-2 Residential Low and R-3 Residential Moderate as implementing zoning districts, neither of which permit public schools. As such, the District is requesting an amendment to the 2024 Description Comprehensive Plan to redesignate all of the subject parcels to Public Quasi -Public land use to of Work: support the development of Middle School No. 5, and to implement the P-1 Public Use District zoning. Rezone: Concurrently with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the District is requesting to rezone 14 of the subject parcels from their current PUD zoning to P-1, and to rezone the remaining parcel (currently zoned R-2 Residential Low) to P-1 as well. These three actions are necessary to align the land use framework with the construction of the new middle school. Project Details Development Type Map Amendment Additional Parcels: 0520053001, 0520053006, 0520053013, 0520053014, 0520053015, 0520053016, 0520053034, 0520053035, 0520053036,0520053040,0520053041,0520053046,0520053055,0520053060 Page 2 of 2 Legend QOverall Project Site 65TH ST SE 66TH ST SE co Q 67TH ST SE Q co 6giN S-� gE 63RD ST SE 5- 22OQ'v LU Q Q ��� On Mn- 11 SSE 21,$1, St 0 2.5 5 s SE z2+msl MIies aple V ent F, SE 2L)N St ya I.9 SE2 ii, St �28N C-1 n N . S Sq-� 8f ai2nast Ev =��2FH<Sl J 'U B LeaHIII U R N ,el Midi Sl SCr. __ Auburn. Federal way _ s„o e S PROJECT rya L SITE Milton aln st[ -Z, n SE lbglh St to c a EdOewaod'— SE +pplM1 Sly Fife gq, m Sources: Esri, HERE,=Garmin, n wane. Rd aE sumnm USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT Puyallup M,;nti-° P, NRCan� Esri Japan, METI, a : Esri China,(Hong Kong), Esri ;F Korea,, Esni,,(Thailand), N;GCC, --' a - 122na 1t4. (c) OpenStreetMap,,l F- . SUMNER-TAPPS HWY E Miles 72ND'7 m 72ND CT SE D � m w 73RD ST SE �� cn m� m Unincorporated City Limits Pierce C o u n t y Lake Tapps Esri, Maxar,, Earithstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community SHOCKEY PLANNING GROUP, Inc. 0 250 50( Vicinity Map Feet N Comprehensive Plan and Rezone Map Date: 5/9/2025 Land Use - COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL TWO - NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL THREE 63RD ST SE SF 'Lim w s U) old ui 9�F w Q Cn Q OPEN SPACE - PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC 65TH ST SE C 1 66TH ST SE T W ui W W w r- m QQ ry w Z S, SE a 6g�� h � SUMNER-TAPPS HWY E W En W Q > 73RD ST SE J -�— —------------- Ek II I I z i' a� yh C� 777 pL SE LAKE TAPPS PKWY SE Legend Tax Parcel Parcels Of Interest City Limits m I m ^ 16th St E 16th St Ct E 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Lake Tapps This 3m a p is for planning purposes only Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri and I:S subject to change. Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenS.treetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community SHOCKEY Existing Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map PLANNING GROUP, Inc. Existing Land Use: Neighborhood Residential Two Map Date: 4/28/2025 Figure 4 Zoning I- Institutional Lakeland Hills PUD 111 F% 62ND ST SE 60.11 11 91i�. '-yo 63RD ST SE sF �9 i s 9�F ui w Q s� w g Q O 65TH ST SE C J U D 10 66TH ST SE w w U) w Cn w m Q Q ry >- ryry U a_ roqv C� w U) Q U) J J_ = w 0 U) Z uJ Q Q w' w JJ I I 73RD ST SE - OS- Open Space R-2 - Residential Low LAKELAND HILLS PUD SUMNER-TAPPS HWY E m 63RD PL SE LAKE TAPPS PKWY SE w Q I w z_ Q 6�TN w S T SF �C) z I I Legend L-1 Tax Parcel Parcels Of Interest City Limits m m 16th S1 E c 161h SI Ct E 0 250 500 1,000 Feet z - ---- ---- --- ----- ----- ----- ----- mad �° Lake Tapps This �n a p is for planning purposes only Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri and I:s subject to change. Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenS.treetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community SHOCKEY Existing Zoning Map PLANNING GROUP, Inc. Existing Zoning: Lakeland Hills PUD and R-2 Residential Low Map Date: 4/25/2025 Figure 6 Land Use - COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL TWO - NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL THREE 63RD ST SE SF 'Lim w s U) old ui 9�F w Q Cn Q OPEN SPACE - PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC 65TH ST SE C 1 66TH ST SE T w ui w w w r- m QQ ry w Z S, SE a 6g�� h � SUMNER-TAPPS HWY E 0 w En w Q > 73RD ST SE J -�— —------------- II I I z i' a� yh C� 777 pL SE LAKE TAPPS PKWY SE,_ w cn -� w Q I w Z Q ITN sTSF w �� t �C) -- II,/ ------------------------ Legend i Tax Parcel Parcels Of Interest City Limits m I m ^ 16th St E 16th St Ct E 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Lake Tapps This 3m a p is for planning purposes only Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri and I:S subject to change. Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenS.treetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community SHOCKEY Proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map PLANNING GROUP, Inc. Proposed Land Use: Public/Quasi-Public Map Date: 4/28/2025 Figure 5 W U) W Q ry ry W a Zoning I- Institutional 0 Lakeland Hills PUD P-1 Public Use '-yo 63RD ST SE S� �9 s 9L NSF U) 65TH ST SE -i C D 10 66TH ST SE W r° U) Cn W m Q U z S, S Q U) J J w A C) U) �� Z LLJ Q Q Y' W J'I J 73RD ST SE ' W U) w Q J J - OS- Open Space R-2 -Residential Low w U) w Q g O U 11�1 ly LAKE LAN D HILLS PUD SUMNER-TAPPS HWY E This map is for planning purposes only and is subject to change. SHOCKEY PLANNING GROUP, Inc. Map Date: 4/28/2025 63RD PL SE LAKE TAPPS PKWY SE w U) ; w Q I z i Q i w �S �G I z�1� I I '4I I I I I I 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Proposed Zoning Map Proposed Zoning: P-1 Public Use Figure 7 jj Iand Use Everett, 35th Street, Suite I SH O CKEY Environmental Analysis Everett, WA 98201 PLANNING GROUP, Inc. Im Permitting p. 425.258.9308 Ynur planning partner since 198� Public Policy www, shocks}•rl:m ni ng.ca m Major Amendment to the Lakeland Hills South PUD Boundary, Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment, and Rezones Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District Middle School No. 5 June 3, 2025 On behalf of Auburn School District (District), the following requests are submitted: 1- Major Amendment to the Lakeland Hills South Planned Unit Development (PUD) Boundary 2- Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Amendment of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Land Use Map from Neighborhood Residential Two to Public/Quasi-Public and 3- Two rezone actions: Zoning Map Amendment from Lakeland Hills South PUD to P-1 Public Use & Zoning Map Amendment from R-2 Residential Low to P-1 Public Use Background & Land Use Requests: The District owns 15 contiguous parcels, totaling approximately 46 acres, located south of the intersection of Lake Tapps Parkway SE and Sumner Tapps Highway East in the City of Auburn. The District intends to develop these parcels into a new middle school, referred to as Middle School No. 5. To develop the future Middle School No. 5, various land use requests are proposed to align with the educational facility project. Request 1 — Amend the boundary of the existing Lakeland Hills PUD to extract 14 of 15 of the District's parcels out of the Lakeland Hills South PUD through a Major PUD Amendment. Most of the subject parcels (except for one parcel, Pierce County Tax Parcel No. 0520053013, which is zoned R-2) are currently located within the Lakeland Hills South PUD zoning district, originally established in the 1990s. The Lakeland Hills South PUD district encompasses a large area in the southern section of Auburn and was created to provide enhanced flexibility and alternative residential development standards for a mix of residential densities. However, the subject site is no longer intended for residential subdivision development, as the proposed use is a new middle school. Therefore, the boundary of the existing Lakeland Hills PUD district should be amended to allow the establishment of the appropriate zoning. The area proposed for removal from the overall 768.79-acre Lakeland Hills South PUD is approximately 43.6 acres and would result in zero dwelling units, as it is designated for future middle school development. Request 2 — Amend the 2024 Comprehensive Plan to redesignate all the subject parcels to Public/Quasi-Public land use to support the development of Middle School No. 5, and to implement the P-1 Public Use District zoning. Under the Imagine Auburn Comprehensive Plan Update 2024, the current land use designation for the subject site is Neighborhood Residential Two, which is intended to accommodate a variety of residential dwelling types. This category includes R-2 Residential Low and R-3 Residential Moderate as implementing zoning districts, neither of which permit public schools. Request 3 — Concurrently with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, rezone 14 of the subject parcels from their current PUD zoning to P-1 Public Use, and rezone the remaining parcel (currently zoned R-2 Residential Low) to P-1 Public Use. These three actions are necessary to align the land use framework with the construction of the new middle school. Figure 1- Vicinity Map: All District owned parcels shown with a black boundary. ailIs null WREN ��rlllll IIl•�S\t■■u1�■�s��ri :� _ � � Lliflullrl�l�l� ■■�� � �� �rlrrtE �ttEi s0� fig nrrrrr■ —�.�■■■ milli -{ a asp ■■■■ ��rt� �= ��� _N: -� + .:.i �� G1 %A�111� =ice% � ' � ��� �tt~`````1,•',* ��llllll�r� rrrlArrrlllluw m � _. = Source: Pierce County GIS Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 ® SHOCKEY Page -Z u.... x • — Figure 2 — Aerial Map: All District owned parcels shown with a black boundary. 41 Ir- mow' • Y� ,,+ •; ���- i. al •rra• :�fa JIM A, who 4 a`3. y�'�'�,.,.4�• Jrr ILarAE ki Source: Pierce County GIS Subject Property Description: The subject parcels include the following Pierce County Tax Parcel Numbers: 0520053001, 0520053006, 0520053013 (only parcel currently zoned R-2 as opposed to PUD), 0520053014, 0520053015, 0520053016, 0520053034, 05200530351 0520053036, 0520053040, 0520053041, 0520053046, 0520053055, 0520053060, and 0520054081. The District's compilation of parcels is bisected by Pierce County parcel 0520053025, which is a pipeline/powerline right-of-way owned by Northwest Pipeline Corporation, and parcel 0520053072, which contains a water tower owned by the City of Bonney Lake. These two parcels are not a part of the application. The total site encompasses approximately 46 acres and is currently vacant. It consists primarily of open, vegetated areas, with dense forest located in the western and southern portions. Power lines and gas lines run across portions of the site. Historically, the property included residential Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 S14OCKEY Page -3 Im .,u.GWUPu b homesites and areas used for commercial equipment storage. The homes were removed in 2006, and the equipment storage use ceased by 2009. Two wetlands, identified in the Critical Areas Report as Wetland A and Wetland B, are both depressional Category III wetlands. Historically, these wetlands may have been connected prior to land development activities that altered the landscape. Wetland A is located along the western boundary of the site and extends south toward Lake Tapps. Wetland B is situated to the west of the site. The subject site is bordered by Sumner Tapps Highway East along its northern and eastern edges. Directly across the highway to the north are the existing Four Lakes Apartment Homes, while to the east lies a densely forested area. Beyond the forested area are single-family residences and Lake Tapps Elementary School, situated within unincorporated Pierce County. To the west and south of the site is undeveloped land characterized by dense tree cover, wetlands, and overhead powerlines. The area directly south of the site also falls within unincorporated Pierce County. Requested Actions: Please see the Major PUD Amendment Map (Figure 3), Existing and Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Maps (Figure 4 and Figure 5), and Existing and Proposed Zoning District Amendment Maps (Figure 6 and Figure 7) that illustrate the proposed changes. Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 Im SHOC:KFY Page -4 ., ...K„ . ,.. r" KIN -�E c i� Lakeland Hills Park 0-1 ---------------- 0' oth 49th St SE Legend Tax Parcel �i Parcels to Extract _i City Limits Lakeland Hills PUD RcceP 62ND ST SE °C�9b Ty 63RD ST SE LrA K,EIL A N D NSF °�9S LuS PU,D 9G�s Q 66TH ST SE C: 0 �. 66TH ST SE,J/(-�- A _ w w tz, -ro E j wr m Q: �P � U S a �, y SH SS gE a SUMNER-TAPPS HWY E = w o m aw a YI w 73RD ST SE n :-1 Ct E make Tapp •L /-3221059056 PII` q C E A 3,'- I1-kSrE k N *� rn c 3 0 0.25 0.5 � Miles 9 23rd St E 0 2 Sr In C' Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., G�EBCO, USGS, This r7i a p i s for planning p u r p: o s e s Only FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri and i s subject to c h a n g e . Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User' -Community SHOCKEY Major PUD Boundary Amendment Map PLANNING GROUP, hic. Figure 3 Map Date: 4/28/2025 Land Use - COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL TWO - NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL THREE 63RD ST SE SF 'Lim w s U) old ui 9�F w Q Cn Q OPEN SPACE - PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC 65TH ST SE C 1 66TH ST SE T W ui W W w r- m QQ ry w Z S, SE a 6g�� h � SUMNER-TAPPS HWY E W En W Q > 73RD ST SE J -�— —------------- Ek II I I z i' a� yh C� 777 pL SE LAKE TAPPS PKWY SE Legend Tax Parcel Parcels Of Interest City Limits m I m ^ 16th St E 16th St Ct E 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Lake Tapps This 3m a p is for planning purposes only Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri and I:S subject to change. Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenS.treetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community SHOCKEY Existing Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map PLANNING GROUP, Inc. Existing Land Use: Neighborhood Residential Two Map Date: 4/28/2025 Figure 4 Land Use - COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL TWO - NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL THREE 63RD ST SE SF 'Lim w s U) old ui 9�F w Q Cn Q OPEN SPACE - PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC 65TH ST SE C 1 66TH ST SE T w ui w w w r- m QQ ry w Z S, SE a 6g�� h � SUMNER-TAPPS HWY E 0 w En w Q > 73RD ST SE J -�— —------------- II I I z i' a� yh C� 777 pL SE LAKE TAPPS PKWY SE,_ w cn -� w Q I w Z Q ITN sTSF w �� t �C) -- II,/ ------------------------ Legend i Tax Parcel Parcels Of Interest City Limits m I m ^ 16th St E 16th St Ct E 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Lake Tapps This 3m a p is for planning purposes only Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri and I:S subject to change. Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenS.treetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community SHOCKEY Proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map PLANNING GROUP, Inc. Proposed Land Use: Public/Quasi-Public Map Date: 4/28/2025 Figure 5 Zoning I- Institutional Lakeland Hills PUD 111 F% 62ND ST SE 60.11 11 91i�. '-yo 63RD ST SE sF �9 i s 9�F ui w Q s� w g Q O 65TH ST SE C J U D 10 66TH ST SE w w U) w Cn w m Q Q ry >- ryry U a_ roqv C� w U) Q U) J J_ = w 0 U) Z uJ Q Q w' w JJ I I 73RD ST SE - OS- Open Space R-2 - Residential Low LAKELAND HILLS PUD SUMNER-TAPPS HWY E m 63RD PL SE LAKE TAPPS PKWY SE w Q I w z_ Q 6�TN w S T SF �C) z I I Legend L-1 Tax Parcel Parcels Of Interest City Limits m m 16th S1 E c 161h SI Ct E 0 250 500 1,000 Feet z - ---- ---- --- ----- ----- ----- ----- mad �° Lake Tapps This �n a p is for planning purposes only Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri and I:s subject to change. Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenS.treetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community SHOCKEY Existing Zoning Map PLANNING GROUP, Inc. Existing Zoning: Lakeland Hills PUD and R-2 Residential Low Map Date: 4/25/2025 Figure 6 W U) W Q ry ry W a Zoning I- Institutional 0 Lakeland Hills PUD P-1 Public Use '-yo 63RD ST SE S� �9 s 9L NSF U) 65TH ST SE -i C D 10 66TH ST SE W r° U) Cn W m Q U z S, S Q U) J J w A C) U) �� Z LLJ Q Q Y' W J'I J 73RD ST SE ' W U) w Q J J - OS- Open Space R-2 -Residential Low w U) w Q g O U 11�1 ly LAKE LAN D HILLS PUD SUMNER-TAPPS HWY E This map is for planning purposes only and is subject to change. SHOCKEY PLANNING GROUP, Inc. Map Date: 4/28/2025 63RD PL SE LAKE TAPPS PKWY SE w U) ; w Q I z i Q i w �S �G I z�1� I I '4I I I I I I 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Proposed Zoning Map Proposed Zoning: P-1 Public Use Figure 7 Proposed Middle School Description: The District has provided a preliminary site plan drawing for reference purposes with this application. The FAC permit for the construction of the site and infrastructure has been submitted to the City of Auburn. Full site plan and design details can be found within that project file. The new middle school will serve grades 6-8 and accommodate approximately 800 students in permanent facilities, along with an additional 250 students in 10 portable classrooms. The main school building will be centrally located on the site and is proposed to be approximately 118,000 square feet in size. It will include spaces for administration, specialists, commons, a library, food services, and community use. Primary access to the site will be from Sumner Tapps Highway East, along the northern edge of the property, via a new single -lane roundabout located directly across from the Four Lakes Apartment Homes. A secondary, gated, and access -controlled bus entrance and exit will be provided at 16th Street East, along the eastern boundary, forming a new fourth leg of the existing signalized intersection. Vehicular access from Sumner Tapps Highway East will lead to two parking areas designated for visitors, parents, staff, and event attendees. Located south of the parking areas, the main school building will be accompanied by 10 portable classrooms, hardscaped play areas, and a designated bus drop-off and pick-up zone. To the west of the building and parking lots, two athletic fields are planned: the northern field will accommodate track and field events, football, soccer, and lacrosse, while the southern field will support ball fields and additional soccer and lacrosse use. In accordance with Auburn Municipal Code 18.52.020, 1.20 parking spaces are required per teaching station. With 40 teaching stations planned, 48 parking spaces are required; however, the project will provide approximately 292 on -site parking spaces, significantly exceeding the minimum requirement. The 15 parcels will be later be combined through a boundary line elimination. Pending approval of a capital bond, the new middle school is anticipated to be completed and operational in 2027. Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 Im SH0CKEY Page -10 ., ...K„ .. ,.. REVISIONS SITE PLAN NOTES LEGAL DESCWPTION Figure 8 NAC ARCXITECTUROL SIZE PLNV A1.3.1 Major PUD Amendment ACC 18.76.140 Findings of Fact: Applications for a major amendment to a PUD shall only be approved if sufficient findings of facts are drawn to support the following: 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, or sites for schools. The proposed Major Lakeland Hills South PUD Amendment, which would remove 14 of the District's 15 parcels from the PUD boundary, will continue to provide, and improve, public facilities and infrastructure serving the site. The future middle school will provide code -compliant street frontage improvements and utility extensions. Primary vehicular access will be from Sumner Tapps Highway East, aligned with the entrance to Four Lakes Apartment Homes, via a new single -lane roundabout. In addition, a gated, access -controlled bus entrance and exit will be located on 16th Street East, forming the new fourth leg of the existing signalized intersection. Pedestrian and non -motorized access will be enhanced with a new 10-foot-wide sidewalk and upgraded lighting along the site's entire street frontage. Open space proposed on -site includes perimeter landscaping, a track and field facility, soccer/football/lacrosse fields, baseball and softball fields, and a protected, undisturbed wetland area (Wetland A along the western boundary). B. The proposed major amendment to the PUD is in accordance with the goals, policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan. To align the City of Auburn's guiding documents, along with the Major PUD Amendment, a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment is proposed to change the designation of all subject parcels from Neighborhood Residential Two to Public/Quasi-Public. Additionally, the concurrent Rezone request would change the zoning of 14 parcels from PUD and one parcel from R-2 Residential Low to P-1 Public Use. These changes are intended to support the future development of Middle School No. 5. Please see Comprehensive Plan section of this narrative that speaks to the how the proposed land use map amendment addresses the goals, policies, and objectives of the Imagine Auburn Comprehensive Plan Update 2024. C. The major amendment is consistent with the purpose of this chapter, ACC 18.76.010, provides for the public benefits required of the development of PUDs and does not result in only Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 © SHOCKEY Page-12 "..`. x`"— increasing the number of units that would otherwise be attained through a development using the existing zoning and subdivisions standards. The removal of the 14 affected parcels from the existing PUD boundary will not result in an increase in the number of permitted dwelling units. On the contrary, it will reduce the overall residential development potential, as the site is being repurposed for a much -needed public school rather than the higher -density residential use originally anticipated under the PUD. There are no dwelling units proposed with this Major PUD Amendment. D. The proposed major amendment to the PUD conforms to the general purposes of other applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the city council. The proposed Major PUD Amendment, along with the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone, establishes the necessary land use framework to support the development of a new middle school campus. This coordinated effort aligns with the overarching goals and policies adopted by the City Council, ensuring consistency across all applicable City plans and regulatory documents. E. The approval of the major amendment will have no more of an adverse impact upon the surrounding area than the approved Lakeland Hills South PUD as shown on the official Lakeland plan map. Approval of the Major PUD Amendment to remove the affected parcels from the Lakeland Hills South PUD, will not result in adverse impacts to the surrounding area. The area proposed for removal from the overall 768.79-acre Lakeland Hills South PUD is approximately 43.6 acres, leaving 725.19 acres as a part of the Lakeland Hills South PUD. The subject site would still be bordered by the broader PUD boundary, which includes existing residential and commercial development, and future allowances for additional residential density to keep up with market demands. ACC 18.76.090 Application for approval of major amendment to the PUD: a. The name of the proposed PUD or planning area and a general description of the proposed development requiring the major amendment, including descriptions of buildings, and other site improvements; The proposal is for extraction of 14 parcels, owned by the District, from the larger Lakeland Hills South PUD, for the purpose of a future middle school on the site. b. A proposed schedule that includes submittal of the site plan, preliminary plat, proposed phased developments, if any, and target dates for starting construction; Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 © SHOCKEY Page -13 The proposed Major PUD Amendment, and associated Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone, will require review and recommendations from the Hearing Examiner and Planning Commission, followed by final consideration by the City Council. The full review process typically takes approximately six months and is anticipated to be completed by December 2025. The District, in anticipation of its capital bond approval, will submit separate applications for site design review and a boundary line elimination to consolidate all subject parcels. The new middle school is anticipated to be completed and operational in 2027. c. Proposed land uses including the type and amount or densities; Proposed land use is an approximately 118,000 square foot middle school. There is no proposed residential density. d. Number and types of dwelling units in the proposed development requiring the major amendment; There are no dwelling units proposed with the Major PUD Amendment. e. Total amount of open spaces, the designated or proposed use, and the amount of open space designated for public and private use; The middle school site plan designates open space areas, such as landscaped settings, athletic fields, and play area, which totals to approximately 11.33 acres of the overall 46.16 acre site. In addition to the planned open space settings, the protected wetland, dense trees, and natural landscaped areas total to approximately 24.8 acres of the overall 46.16 acre site. f. Plans for the perpetual maintenance and preservation of private spaces and private streets; The subject site is private property and will be maintained and preserved by the District. There are no private streets, such as tracts, proposed. There are internal driveways and drive aisles proposed for traffic circulation. g. Any requests for modifications to the street construction standards of the land division ordinance including substantiating information as to why the modifications are necessary; Not at this time. h. The gross acreage of the PUD or planning area, the net usable acreage, and the acreage of any nonbuildable areas; Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 ® SHOCKEY Page-14 "..`. x`"— The existing Lakeland Hills South PUD is approximately 768.79 acres. The area proposed for extraction from the existing PUD is 43.6 acres. i. The name and address of the applicant. All land within the PUD or planning area shall be under the ownership of the applicant. Applicants are defined as an individual, partnership, corporation, or groups of individuals, partnerships or corporations; and The applicant is the Auburn School District, who owns all the proposed parcels to be removed from the existing PUD. j. The name, address, stamp and signature of the professional engineer, professional architect or professional land surveyor who prepared the site plan. NAC Architects Attn: Karee Loghry Project Manager 2025 1st Ave Suite 300 Seattle, Washington 98121 Phone: (206) 411-4522 Email: kloghry@nacarchitecture.com Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 SHOCK@Y Page -15 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Overview: Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Existing Plan Proposed PlanDesi g nation Designation Subject Lakeland Hills Public Use District Neighborhood Public/Quasi-Public Site (14 of South PUD Residential Two 15 parcels) Subject Residential Low Public Use District Neighborhood Public/Quasi-Public Site (1 of Residential Two 15 parcels) North Lakeland Hills n/a Neighborhood n/a South PUD Residential Two South Moderate n/a Suburban n/a Density Single Residential Family (Unincorporated (Unincorporate Pierce County) d Pierce County) East Lakeland Hills n/a Neighborhood n/a South PUD Residential Two West Lakeland Hills n/a Neighborhood n/a South PUD & Residential Two Residential Low Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 IM SHOC:KFY Page -16 ., ...K„ . ,.. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Written Statement ACC 14.22.110 Decision criteria for plan amendments: A. The comprehensive plan was developed and adopted after significant study and public participation. The principles, goals, objectives and policies contained therein shall be granted substantial weight when considering a proposed amendment. Therefore, the burden of proof for justifying a proposed amendment rests with the applicant, who must demonstrate that the request complies with and/or relates to the following decision criteria: 1. The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent; The proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, to change the land use category of the subject site from Neighborhood Residential Two to Public/Quasi-Public, aligns with the goals and policies of the Imagine Auburn Comprehensive Plan Update 2024, adopted on December 16, 2024, and overall project intent to use the site as a new middle school. The proposed change would result in internally consistent guiding documents and future development on site. Examples of Comprehensive Plan goals are addressed below. Land Use Element - Goals, Policies, and Land Use Characteristics - Public/Quasi-Public Designation LU-111 The primary purpose of this designation is to address public needs while taking advantage of synergies with the adjacent areas where they are sited. The District's purpose is to provide educational services to students living within its District. Schools are typically placed in the residential neighborhoods they serve. The District acquired these parcels to ensure that Middle School No. 5 could be developed to better serve the needs of Auburn's growing community and surrounding area. LU-112 Appropriate uses for this designation include facilities that serve the needs of the larger community such as public schools, active parks, city operated municipal facilities, police stations, and fire stations. The proposed land use designation, Public/Quasi-Public, is for the intention of a new public middle school. LU-127 Build on partnerships with school districts to expand public use of school facilities for recreation and exercise, and to improve public access to facilities for this purpose, as appropriate. The future middle school development will expand recreational opportunities for both students and residents (during non -school hours), through the construction of a track and field facility, soccer/football field, baseball and softball fields. Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 Im SHOCKEY Page -17 ., ...K„ .. ,.. Capital Facilities Element - Goals and Policies - Goal 1: Keeping Pace with Growth CF-2 Encourage development where new public facilities can be provided in an efficient manner. CF-5 Provide additional public facility capacity when existing facilities are used to their maximum level of efficiency (consistent with adopted standards for level of service). CF-10 Establish land use patterns that optimize the use of public facilities. The adopted 2024 Comprehensive Plan recognizes and identifies the new middle school, Middle School No. 5, as a part of the District's future projects to accommodate projected growth in the area. Approval of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to redesignate the site to Public -Quasi - Public allows the District to move forward with the middle school project which promotes land use patterns that make efficient use of public facilities. 2. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased; Transportation wise, improvements proposed by the District include frontage improvements per city code, construction of a single -lane roundabout at Sumner Tapps Highway East and the middle school access, including a right turn lane into the school, new gated driveway at 16t" Street East and Sumner Tapps Highway Easement for school bus access, and an estimated $518,056 traffic impact fee based on the 2025 fee schedule. The site plan will be designed to adhere to required fire department infrastructure (sprinklers, hydrants, etc.) and access throughout the project. Water and sewer extensions will be made from Sumner Tapps Highway East in accordance with Bonney Lake, for water, and City of Auburn for sewer. Educational services would be increased by allowing the Auburn School District to proceed with the new middle school development. 3. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid; The District acquired 14 of the 15 parcels in 2009 and the remaining parcel in 2023 and is now ready to proceed with the new middle school development. The current land use designation for the subject site is Neighborhood Residential Two, which is intended to accommodate a variety of residential dwelling types. This category includes R-2 Residential Low and R-3 Residential Moderate as implementing zoning districts, neither of which permit public schools. As such, the District is requesting an amendment to the 2024 Comprehensive Plan to redesignate all of the subject parcels to Public/Quasi-Public land use to support the development of Middle School No. 5, and to implement the P-1 Public Use District zoning. Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 IM SH0C:KFY Page -18 ., ...K., .. ,.. 4. A determination of change or lack of change in conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the specific section of the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed amendment, See response to item number 3 above. 5. If applicable, a determination that a question of consistency exists between the comprehensive plan and Chapter RCW, the countywide planning policies for either King and/or Pierce County, as appropriate, and Vision 2050; This is not applicable. 6. If the request is to change the land use designation of a specific property on the comprehensive land use map, the applicant must demonstrate one of the following: a. The current land use designation was clearly made in error or due to an oversight; This is not applicable. b. The proposed land use designation is adjacent to property having a similar or compatible designation, or other conditions are present to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties; The subject site is bordered by properties with the Neighborhood Residential Two land use designation to the north, east, and west, within the City of Auburn. To the south, is unincorporated Pierce County land, with the Suburban Residential land use designation. These residential based Comprehensive Plan land use designations are compatible with the proposed Public/Quasi-Public land use designation because a middle school is an appropriate and logical land use within this context. The new middle school is intended to serve the surrounding community (and beyond) and locating a school within a residential area supports neighborhood cohesion, recreational and sport opportunities, vehicular and pedestrian connections, and everyday guardianship. c. There has been a change in conditions since the current land use designation came into effect. The District acquired the majority of the subject parcels in 2009 and the remaining parcel in 2023. At the time, the site was designated as Moderate Density Residential and Open Space in the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. It was later reclassified as Single Family Residential in the 2015 Plan, and most recently as Neighborhood Residential Two in the 2024 Comprehensive Plan. With plans now underway for the development of Middle School No. 5, the District is requesting a land use redesignation to Public/Quasi-Public to support the proposed educational use. Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 ® SHOCKEY Page-19 "..`. x`"— Rezone Written Statement ACC 18.68.040 Rezone (zoning map amendment) approval criteria: A. The rezone implements the policies of the comprehensive plan; or The proposed rezone - which would rezone 14 of the 15 parcels from Lakeland Hills South PUD to P-1 Public Use, and one parcel from R-2 Residential Low to P-1 Public Use - supports the policies of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan by aligning with the associated Comprehensive Plan Land Use redesignation request for Public/Quasi-Public. The 2024 Comprehensive Plan lists the P-1 Public Use zoning district as an implementing zoning designation for the Public/Quasi-Public Designation. Land within the City of Auburn is assigned a land use designation and implementing zoning district, which builds from previously adopted Comprehensive Plan Maps, the existing land use pattern, adopted subarea plans, topography, natural features, and targeted goals for shifting the character of specified areas. B. The rezone is necessary due to a substantial change in circumstances since the current zoning; and The proposed rezone is a necessary and logical action to align the site with land use objectives for the new middle school development. The current zoning designation, Lakeland Hills South PUD zoning, is intended for a mix of residential densities and flexible development standards, and R-2 zoning does not permit schools as an allowed land use. C. The rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, or welfare. The Auburn School District serves a rapidly growing population across Auburn, Algona, Pacific, and Unincorporated King County. The rezone request supports the development of Middle School No. 5, which is anticipated to be completed and operational in 2027. The new middle school will serve grades 6-8 and accommodate approximately 800 students in permanent facilities, along with an additional 250 students in 10 portable classrooms. The conceptual site plan for the school is sensitive to development needs and protection of critical areas. Key features include: • New parking facilities for visitors, staff, students, and parents • Designated bus pick up and drop off areas • Two new recreational fields: one for track and field, lacrosse, football, and soccer, and the other for lacrosse, softball, and baseball • Preservation of the existing wetland on the west side of the site • Retention of dense tree populations along the west, south, and eastern boundaries Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 IM SHOC:KFY Page -20 ., ...K„ . ,.. The new school will increase student capacity, meet current educational and facility standards, incorporate advanced technology systems, and expand opportunities for community use. Consequently, the rezone has a substantial and positive relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare of the students and residents of the City of Auburn and Auburn School District. Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 IM SHOC:KFY Page -21 ., ...K„ . ,.. AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT - SITE 35 CRITICAL AREAS REPORT ,.&Grelfte A550 1 .t 5LLO NIF ENViRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT - SITE 35 CRITICAL AREAS REPORT PREPARED FOR: AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT 915 FOURTH ST. NE AUBURN, WA 98002 PREPARED BY: GRETTE ASSOCIATESLLC 2709 JAHN AVE. NW, STE. H5 GIG HARBOR, WA 98335-7999 (253) 573-9300 CHAD WALLIN, PWS BIOLOGIST ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS NOVEMBER 2023 DATE TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1 2 FEATURE SUMMARY............................................................................................. 1 3 BACKGROUND........................................................................................................ 2 3.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................. 2 3.2 Local Critical Areas Inventory............................................................................ 2 3.3 National Wetlands Inventory.............................................................................. 3 3.4 Sensitive Wildlife and Plants.............................................................................. 3 3.5 State Water Classification System...................................................................... 3 3.6 Soil Information.................................................................................................. 3 4 METHODS................................................................................................................. 3 4.1 Hydrophytic Vegetation...................................................................................... 4 4.2 Wetland Hydrology............................................................................................. 4 4.3 Hydric Soils........................................................................................................ 5 5 PRECIPITATION ANALYSIS.................................................................................. 5 6 WETLAND RESULTS.............................................................................................. 5 6.1 Wetland A........................................................................................................... 5 6.2 Wetland B........................................................................................................... 6 6.3 Wetland Categorization...................................................................................... 6 6.4 Regulatory Considerations.................................................................................. 7 6.5 Disclaimer........................................................................................................... 7 7 BIOLOGIST QUALIFICATIONS............................................................................. 8 7.1 Chad Wallin........................................................................................................ 8 8 REFERENCES........................................................................................................... 8 Auburn School District — Site 35 i November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC LIST OF FIGURES Figure1. Vicinity map.........................................................................................................1 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Wetland delineation summary..............................................................................2 Table 2. Definitions for USFWS plant indicator status......................................................4 Table 3. WETS precipitation analysis................................................................................5 Table 4. Wetland rating and categorization summary........................................................6 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Wetland Delineation Map Appendix B. Wetland Summaries Appendix C. Wetland Datasheets Appendix D: Wetland Rating Form Appendix E: Queried Database Figures Auburn School District — Site 35 ii November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC I INTRODUCTION Grette Associates (Grette) is under contract with the Auburn School District to perform a wetland delineation and critical areas assessment at the Auburn School District's property known as Site 35 (Pierce County parcels 0520053055, 3014, 3034, 3036, 3006, 3035, 3016, 3040, 3001, 3041, 3015, 4081, 4080, 3060, and 4079; 2412443; Figure 1). The purpose of this critical areas report is to document all wetlands, natural water features, and wildlife habitat areas (WHAs) that are located within 300 feet of the subject property. This report has been prepared in compliance with Chapter 16.10 of the Auburn Municipal Code (AMC) and is intended to serve as a baseline conditions report. Figure 1. Vicinity map (subject property highlighted in yellow) 2 FEATURE SUMMARY A Grette Associates qualified consultant visited the subject property on September 18, 2023 to conduct a critical areas reconnaissance within the subject property. In summary, two probable wetland features (Wetland A and Wetland B) were identified by Grette (Grette Associates 2023). Following the September 2023 reconnaissance, Grette completed a second site visit on October 25, 2023 to delineate the onsite wetland feature (Wetland A). No additional critical areas were identified during Grette's site visits. Grette Associates collected wetland delineation data and delineated the onsite wetland feature (Wetland A; Appendix A) according to the procedures defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Federal Wetland Delineation Manual (1987) and the USACE's Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (2010). The offsite wetland feature (Wetland B) was visually evaluated using the USACE's Regional Supplement Auburn School District — Site 35 1 November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC (2010). Wetlands were rated according to AMC 16.10.080 and the Washington State Department of Ecology's (Ecology) Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western WA — 2014 Update: Version 2 (Hruby and Yahnke 2023). Wetland delineation summaries, field datasheets and wetland rating forms are presented in Appendices B, C and D, respectively. A summary of the identified wetlands is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Wetland delineation summary Feature Cowardin Class' Hydrology Modifier HGM Class Wetland Category Buffer Width2,3 A PEM/FO Seasonally Flooded and Saturated Depressional III 110 ft. B PEM/SS Seasonally Flooded and Saturated Depressional 111 60 ft. 1 Classification based on Cowardin et al. (1979). 2 Buffers are based on AMC 16.10.090 and the habitat scores as determined from the rating form. The buffers also assume implementation of the mitigation measures in AMC 16.10.090(1)(a)(ii). 3 Wetland A has a moderate habitat score while Wetland B has a low habitat score (Hruby and Yahnke 2024). 3 BACKGROUND 3.1 Existing Conditions The subject property primarily consists of a large developed area that has historically consisted of a mix of residential homesites and commercial equipment storage areas. The residential homesites were removed in 2006, while the equipment storage was removed by 2009. Aerial imagery also shows that in 2009 the site was largely cleared and graded in preparation of site development. The 2009 development activities appear to include the construction of several stormwater ponds and ditches to manage runoff. Undeveloped areas within the subject property are native forest predominantly consisting of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and big -leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) with an understory dominated largely by salal (Gaultheria shallon) and sword fern (Polystichum munitum; Figures 1 and 2). Figure 2. General Forested Conditions 3.2 Local Critical Areas Inventory The City of Auburn's online GIS database was queried to identify any potential critical areas on or within the vicinity of the subject property. This database did not have any critical area data available at the time of Grette's inquiry so Grette utilized Pierce County's Public GIS online database to identify any critical areas that are mapped at the local level. Auburn School District — Site 35 2 November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC According to Pierce County's database, there are no critical areas mapped within the subject property (Appendix E). Offsite wetland features mapped by Pierce County include Wetland B and a small wetland area located south of the subject property. 3.3 National Wetlands Inventory The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) was queried to determine if previously -identified wetlands are present within 300 feet of the subject property (USFWS 2023). According to the NWI Interactive Online Mapper, the southern portion of Wetland A and the general area of Wetland B are mapped by NWI (Appendix E). In addition, NWI maps two of the constructed stormwater ponds identified during Grette's site assessments. 3.4 Sensitive Wildlife and Plants The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database on-line mapper was queried to determine if state or federally listed fish or wildlife species occur near the subject property (WDFW 2023). According to the PHS database, in addition to those features mapped by NWI, WDFW identifies the mapped wetland features as small waterfowl concentration areas (Appendix E). No additional PHS features (e.g., streams) are mapped in the vicinity of the subject property. The Washington Department of Natural Resources' (WDNR) Wetlands of High Conservation Value mapper was queried to determine if the subject property occurs in a location reported to contain high quality natural heritage wetland occurrences or occurrences of natural heritage features commonly associated with wetlands (WDNR 2023a). According to WDNR's mapper, there are no records of rare plants or high -quality native ecosystems occurring on or in the vicinity of the subject property (Appendix E). 3.5 State Water Classification System The WDNR's Forest Practice Application Mapping Tool on-line mapper was queried to identify the water typing of any streams mapped by WDNR (WDNR 2023b). According to WDNR, the central portion of Wetland B is mapped to provide potential fish (i.e., Type- F) but does not map any other type of natural water feature (e.g., streams) in the vicinity of the subject property. 3.6 Soil Information According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2023a), the soils within the subject property consists of Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (8-15 percent slopes) and Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (15-30 percent slopes; Appendix E). Neither of these soil units are mapped as hydric by the NRCS. 4 METHODS The identified onsite wetland was delineated according to the procedures described in the USACE's Federal Wetland Delineation Manual (1987), and the USACE's Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (2010). Paired data plots and soil test pits were excavated to evaluate wetland and upland conditions. Guidance from the USACE's Regional Supplement was used to evaluate the data at each data point. Auburn School District — Site 35 3 November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC The boundary of the wetland was established based on changes in vegetation, field indicators of hydric soils, water levels at or below 12 inches, topographic changes, and best professional judgment. Data plots were established in and adjacent to the wetland. The location of the wetland boundary was defined by placement of florescent orange flagging tape. The location of each data plot was defined by the placement of pink flagging tape. The wetland boundary flagging was labeled alpha -numerically (i.e. A-2), where the letter designates the wetland and the number designates the specific flag angle point. Plants were determined to be more or less associated with wetlands based on their wetland indicator (FAC) status. The percent dominance for each plant strata was determined using the 50-20 Rule, which is the recommended method for selecting dominant species from a plant community in instances where quantitative data are available (USACE 2010). In utilizing this rule, dominants are the most abundant species that individually or collectively accounts for more than 50 percent of the total coverage of vegetation in the stratum plus any other species that, by itself accounts for at least 20 percent of the total. 4.1 Hydrophytic Vegetation The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the NWI have established a rating system that has been applied to commonly occurring plant species on the basis of their frequency of occurrence in wetlands (Table 3). Species indicator status expresses the range in which plants may occur in wetlands and non -wetlands (uplands). Under this system, vegetation is considered hydrophytic when there is an indicator status of facultative (FAC), facultative wetland (FACW) or obligate wetland (OBL) (Table 2). The hydrophytic vegetation criterion for wetland determination is met when more than 50 percent of the dominant species in the plant community are FAC or wetter. The USACE's National Wetland Plant List (USACE 2020) was used to determine vegetation indicator status. Table 2. Definitions for USFWS plant indicator status Plant Indicator Status Category Indicator Status Abbreviation I Definition (Estimated Probability of Occurrence) Obligate Upland UPL Occur rarely (<1 percent) in wetlands, and almost always (>99 ..........................................................................................:................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ;percent) in uplands Facultative Upland FACU ;Occur sometimes (1 percent to <33 percent) in wetlands, but occur ........................................................................................_........................................................................................._....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... :more often (>67 percent to 99 percent) in uplands Facultative FAC Similar likelihood (33 percent to 67 percent) of occurring in both ..........................................................................................:.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. wetlands and uplands Facultative Wetland FACW :Occur usually in wetlands (>67 percent to 99 percent), but also occur ........................................................................................_........................................................................................._....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... in uplands (1 percent to 33 percent) Obligate Wetland OBL Occur almost always (>99 percent) in wetlands, but rarely occur in ..........................................................................................:................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... uplands (<1 percent) Not Listed NL :Not listed due to insufficient information to determine status 4.2 Wetland Hydrology Evidence of permanent or periodic inundation (water marks, drift lines, drainage patterns), or soil saturation to the surface for 14 consecutive days or more during the growing season meets the hydrology criterion. Oxidized root channels in the top 12 inches and hydrogen sulfide are primary indicators and water -stained leaves and geomorphic position are secondary indicators of wetland hydrology. Auburn School District — Site 35 4 November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC 4.3 Hydric Soils Soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper soil horizons are considered hydric soils. Field indicators include histosols, the presence of a histic epipedon, a sulfidic odor, low soil chroma, and gleying. Soil conditions were compared to the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils detailed in the USACE's Regional Supplement. 5 PRECIPITATION ANALYSIS During the site assessment, the Tacoma #1 National Weather Station (NWS Station 458278) recorded 0.57 inches of rainfall (MRCS 2023b). In the 14 days preceding the site assessment, 1.49 inches of rainfall was recorded at the station (MRCS 2023b). The total precipitation recorded at the Tacoma station from October 1, 2022 through September 30,2023 (30.18 inches) was approximately 74 percent of the normal rainfall (40.81 inches) that occurs during the same time (NOAA 2023 and NRCS 2023b). Table 3 below presents an analysis of the appropriate NRCS WETS table (MRCS 2023b) for the three months preceding the field investigation. Table 3. WETS precipitation analysis WETS Rainfall Measured Preceding Percentile t Rainfall 2 Conditions Condition Month Value Month Value3 Weight inches (inches) 30% 70% October 2.50 4.76 2.67 Normal 2 3 6 September 0.59 1.78 2.49 Wet 3 2 6 August +0,27 0.85 0.26 Dry 1 1 1 Sum: 13 ' Observed rainfall for the month (NOAA 2016b) 2 Dry conditions are below 30% WETS table value, Normal conditions are between 30% and 70% of the WETS table values, Wet conditions are above 70% of the WETS table value. 3 Dry equals a value of 1, normal equals a value of 2, wet equals a value of 3 4 Due to the timing of the site assessment, October precipitation results were included in this analysis. Bins were established to evaluate the overall rainfall period during the field investigation; drier (sum is 6-9), normal (sum is 10-14), wet (sum is 15-18). A sum of 13 indicates that hydrologic conditions are normal. 6 WETLAND RESULTS 6.1 Wetland A Wetland A is a palustrine emergent and forested wetland that originates in the northwest portion of the subject property (Appendix A). This wetland feature contains both depressional and slope geomorphic and hydrologic wetland characteristics. Historically, Wetland A and Wetland B were potentially one contiguous feature; however, as land development activities began to occur overtime, a disconnection between these two wetland areas was established. Namely through historical clearing and grading and the construction of a maintenance access road. Auburn School District — Site 35 5 November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC Wetland A receives seasonal overflow from Wetland B through an approximate 18-inch culvert situated beneath a maintenance road that provides access to one of the constructed stormwater ponds within the subject property (Appendix A). Surface water discharged to Wetland A appears to sheet flow and infiltrate across the wetland. No defined channelization was observed within Wetland A during Grette's site visits. Any seasonal ponding that occurs within Wetland A is likely limited to small depressional areas that are located throughout the wetland. Based on aerial imagery and Pierce County's wetland database, Wetland A extends south of the subject property towards Lake Tapps. More specifically, Grette delineated the wetland boundary extending to the southern edge of the subject property where it continues downslope towards a previously delineated offsite wetland mapped by Pierce County (Appendix A). 6.2 Wetland B Wetland B is an offsite palustrine emergent/scrub-shrub wetland that is situated within a distinct topographic depression (Appendix A). Based on aerial imagery, the eastern portion of Wetland B contains an area of seasonal ponding that occurs for a large duration of the year and only appears to dry out during the peak of the summer season. The remaining wetland area appears to be seasonally saturated. Seasonal discharge from Wetland B appears to be conveyed to Wetland A from a ditch and through an approximately 18-inch culvert. As noted above, the area where these conveyance features are located appear to have been manipulated over time to manage seasonal surface water flows. According to lidar imagery (WDNR 2023b), there is a well- defined linear ditch that extends from the eastern portion of Wetland B to the culvert beneath the existing maintenance road (Appendix A). 6.3 Wetland Categorization To determine the categorization of the wetlands based on function, the wetland classification guidelines in Ecology's wetland rating system (Hruby and Yahnke 2023) were used. Based on this guidance, each wetland was given a score for each of three functions: Water Quality, Hydrology, and Habitat (Table 4). Table 4. Wetland rating and categorization summary Feature Cowardin Class HGM Class Water Quality H drolo Habitat Total Category Wetland A PEM/FO Depressional 7 6 6 19 III Wetland B PEM/SS Depressional 7 6 5 18 III Per Chapter 16.10 of the AMC, wetlands are subject to a buffer to protect the integrity and function of said feature and are based on the quality of the habitat function they provide. Wetland A provides moderate habitat function due to the special habitat features available within the wetland (Hruby and Yahnke 2023). However, while in close proximity, Wetland B does not have the diversity of special habitat features compared to Wetland A. As a result, Wetland B provides low habitat function. According to AMC 16.10.090, in addition to their habitat score, wetland buffers are also determined based on whether or not the mitigation measures outlined in AMC Auburn School District — Site 35 6 November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC 16.10.090(1)(a)(ii) are used. If the applicable measures are adopted in a proposed site design, a Category III wetland providing low habitat function would be subject to a 60-foot buffer and a Category III wetland providing moderate habitat function would be subject to a 110-foot buffer. In the event a proposed project does not include the applicable mitigation measures, the buffers would be 80 feet and 150 feet, respectively. 6.4 Regulatory Considerations Wetlands are regulated by agencies at the local, state, and federal levels. At the local level, wetlands and their associated buffers within the City of Auburn are regulated under their critical areas ordinance (Chapter 16.10 of the ACC). At the state level, wetlands are regulated by the Washington State Department of Ecology through the federal Clean Water Act (Section 401) and the State Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90.48). The requirement for a Water Quality Certification from Ecology for wetland impacts is triggered by an applicant's applying for a federal Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the USACE. Ecology may also issue an Administrative Order through RCW 90.48, allowing them wetland regulatory authority without a federal nexus. Additionally, WDFW regulates work within state waters to protect fish life under the State's Hydraulic Code (RCW 77.55) through the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) program. At the federal level, impacts (specifically dredging or filling) to wetlands are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency through the US Army Corps of Engineers. The USACE administers the federal Clean Water Act (Section 404) for projects involving dredging or filling in Waters of the US (lakes, streams, marine waters, and most non - isolated wetlands). While it is the regulatory agencies that make the final determination regarding jurisdictional status, project proponents can infer jurisdiction using the guidance provided by each agency or local government. This inference can be used to design a project based on the anticipated regulatory constraints within the project area. However, it is the project proponent's responsibility to contact each potential regulating agency and confirm their regulatory status and requirements. 6.5 Disclaimer The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific application to this proposed project site. They have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. Our work was also performed in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in our proposal. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based on an interpretation of information currently available to us and are made within the operation scope, budget, and schedule of this project. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Because of such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly or in part. Wetland boundaries are based on conditions present at the time of the site visit and considered preliminary until the flagged wetland and/or drainage boundaries are validated Auburn School District — Site 35 7 November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC by the appropriate jurisdictional agencies. Validation of the boundaries by the regulating agencies provide a certification, typically in writing, that the wetland boundaries verified are the boundaries that will be regulated by the agencies until a specific date or until the regulations are modified. Only the regulating agencies can provide this certification. Since wetlands are dynamic communities affected by both natural and human activities, changes in wetland boundaries may be expected. Because of such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly or in part. 7 BIOLOGIST QUALIFICATIONS 7.1 Chad Wallin Chad Wallin is a Biologist with extensive training in wetland science and ecology restoration. Chad also has professional experience in stream and fish restoration, marine monitoring, mitigation monitoring, and fish and wildlife assessments. Chad has earned a Bachelor's of Arts degree in Environmental Studies from the University of Washington along with certificates in ecology restoration and wetland science and management. Chad is also a certified Professional Wetland Scientist through the Society of Wetland Scientists. For a list of representative projects, please contact him at Grette Associates. 8 REFERENCES Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats for the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31, U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. Environmental Laboratory (Corps). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Grette Associates, LLC. 2023. Site 35 — Wetland Reconnaissance: Technical Memorandum. Prepared Auburn School District. September 18, 2023. Hruby, T. & Yahnke, A. 2023. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Version 2). Publication #23-06-009. Washington Department of Ecology. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2023. National Climate Data Center (NCDC). Normal Climatological Report: Water Year Data. Accessed October 26, 2023. URL: www.ncdc.noaa.gov Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS). 2023a. United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey [map online]. Queried October 30, 2023. URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS). 2018b. Climate Data for Pierce County, WA. National Water and Climate Center. Tacoma - No. 1 NWS Station (458278). Accessed October 26, 2023. URL: https:Hagacis.rcc-acis.org/?fips=53053 Auburn School District — Site 35 8 November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2020. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.5. http://wetland-plants.usace.arm.mil/ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 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-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023. Wetland Mapper [map online]. National Wetlands Inventory Queried October 26, 2023. URL: hllp://www.fws.aov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html Interactive Layer = "Wetlands". Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2023. PHS on the Web [map online]. Priority Habitats and Species Queried October 30, 2023. URL: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mqpping/Ths/. o�pping//hs/. Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2023a. Wetlands of High Conservation Value Mapper [map online]. Queried October 30, 2023. URL: hLtps://www.dnr.wa.fzov/NHPwetlandviewer Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2023b. Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool [map online]. Streams and Water Type Breaks. Queried October 30, 2023. URL: https:Hfortress.wa.gov/dnr/protectiongis/fpamt/index.html Auburn School District — Site 35 9 November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICTS - SITE 35 CRITICAL AREAS REPORT APPENDIX A: WETLAND DELINEATION MAP Auburn School District — Site 35 A November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC ( \ \ao��� \\\\ IIIIJ I �� \\\\\\\ IIIIIIII I\�\\ �11llll�l IIIIII \\\\ \ ILI10 ollllj \\\�\\ IIIIII11�I1'j I'Ln \� \ III Ilij Iiiillill�Il APN 0520053059 iJ FLAG "WF-42" FLAG "WF-41" FLAG "WF-40"— APN 0520053058 FLAG "WF-39" AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT - SITE 36 A PORT/ON OF THE SE 9/4 & THE SW 114 OF THE SW 1/4 & THE SE 9/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SEC. 05q CITY OF AUBURN, 590 (21 `\ \\ /°\-sss \\\\\ FLAG "WF-1" \\ \\\ PARCEL G ' A\ I \I\P' s�N\, \—0� \ \5Jl2J 0053\�03\\ \4 0\ / PARCEL C FLAG "SP—\2" \\\ APN 0520053006 FLASP I�\"WFv \FLAG I I I I \ \� \\ n \ \FLAG WF-3 ,\�\\\ \\\ \ \\\\ \ \ I \ \ \ \ FLAG IF-4 \\\\\\\ \ \ \ -586 s \ , , , PARCEL F i \ I FLAG "WF-5 \\\\\\ APN 0520053035 \\\ \\\\\ \ \ �\ \\\\\ \\\\ \ \\. ��� % \ \ \ \ l \\ FLAG\\\ \ \\\ \\ \\\as\\\\ \\\ \ I \ \\ \ PARCEL B \ I \\ WF-38" FLAG "WF-7„_ \ \ \ \ \ \ APN 0520053016 I I \ \\ \ \ \ I \ \\ \ss \ \\ \\\ \\\\\\ \ \\\\ \\\ \ I \ FLAG „WF 8 1FLAG "WF-37"\ \ \ s\\\\ \\ \\\ o\\\ \ \\ \\\ — \ I j I I i \ 00 FLAG \ FLAG "WF— 36" FLAG "WF-10'°\� s6 �w \\\\\\\\ / \� I I \IIII)\ A \ -A FLAG "WF-35" �� I \ FLAG "WF-11 " �, O\Al,��PARCEL E�IFLAG \\\ \ \\\APN 0520053040 \\\\\�\\ \\FLAG "WF-3 » / "WF-12"\ \ \\�\\ \\ \\� 1 ) III \ \ 1 I \\\\\ \\ IIII / \ II I III\\\\ \ \ \I I I r \\ lh,l\\\ (I �' 1 \\\ FLAG "WF-33 \, — ,\ \ �\ \ \\ \ \ \�\ \\\\\\ FLAG "WF-13 \ I I \ \\\\\ \\\ �s\\\ \� \' FLAG "WF-32" \FLAG "WF-14"\\ \ \ Ilpl\\ \\p \\ \ \Ij\1 \\ \\\\\\\ J 1\IIII\\ \\\ \\\\\\ \ 1 I \\\\\ 1 I \\\III \\ I \\\\\ \ \\ \ \\ \ 1 \\\ \ I \\ _ IIII\IIII/ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ I \ IF SAG\ WF-31" I APN 0520053044 \ I IJ III \ a \ I11 ' \ IIAII\ \\\\\\ IIII III \ FLAG "WF-15"\ 77 LOIOII � FLAG "WF-30"/(/ \ l \ , ✓////\ \\ I I < \\ \\\ \1�1\ I \ \\ \ \6�' /'\\\\ \IIII//\ I 1 \ I \ I FLAG "WF-29" I / \\ r' I \ \ p '� - i III /// % \ \ \\, \ , IIII \J \ \ \�\ / FLAG "WF-16", \ \\ \ IIII \ — — \\ °\ \ \\\\ PARCEL A \ APN 0520053015 \\\ \ , \ 11 \ MIII \ \ \ FLAG „WF-28 \ I \ \\ \ , I\\ \\\ /h \ \ \\ FLAG "WF-17"\ s\\tea -��oD > l ID\\ \\\ �n\\ \FLAG "IWF-27" \ \ \\FLAG s'\ 18. ��o\ �I ��\\\\\ o \ \ / / \ \\\ .0 IIII \ I I 1 I \ \\11�,\\ \ \ �\_\ � \ FLAG �WF 19"\ \ / //// \\�\ Ln 1 I I \ \ J II I \11 I \ \ \\\ \ I I FLAG "WF-26" 440 \11 1 I\ III\\\ \ IIII I \ \ \ \, -i\ 1 \ ,FLAG All \ \\� \1\\ \\\ II s \ — \\ o\\\\\ ► \ \ IIII 1\ \ — \ / > � 1\\\� s' � � I�Q\\� \ \ �\ \\\� VAVA\�)�IIIIIIIII\`" s, \\\\��\�•Sos\\ \��� IIII IIII I \ J� I \ csoFLAG "WF-21" \\\ osT9 \ I I /\\\ FLAG WF-25 ��\\\\\ _�\ \ \ ss I FLAG "WF-22" \ / I / / TWN. 20 N... RGE. 5 E. W.M. PIERCE COUNTY, WASHING TON. SUMNER-TAPPS HIGHWAY EAST (PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY) --- - _ \ T— 620 ZZZI p, \ \ \ \ APN 0520082021 WETLAND DATA .i ON —SITE WETLANDS AREA=82,243 SQUARE FEET GRAPHIC SCALE ON —SITE WETLANDS BUFFER AREA=195,893 SQUARE FEET 0 40 80 160 FEET 1" = 80 FEET o 0 0 01 11D00 o CIO Ca O 1 O O APN 7002182090 I z I I 2 d Q .�� t \\ \ \\ \\\\\ a Q Q Q \ \ o \ \\\ \\ \ \\\\ \\\ ss �r \\\\ �� _� \ \ PARCEL K \ \ \ \ \\ \\\\ \\\\/\595 \ \ APN 0520054079\ /// \\ \\ \ \ \\\\ \ o S�\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\\N 570 xq \ \\\ \ \\\\ \ \ 0, s9p \\\\ \\\ o .\. p \\ \ \ \\6�s� \\li\\\\\\\S9S\\\\ L Z\�\i o LoIA 0 omax\� \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\\ \ — / ,�\ \\\ IIIII \ \ 585 44 I \ \ \ \ \ V. \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ 60s� \ \ 11\�i \�590 , -I"- 0, < )\\\ 1\\\\ \ \I I \ \\\ l � \ \ \ \ \\ \\• \ � \\\ \ \\ � � \ \�� II III I I I I \ \ \ � l I IIIII(0/ \ \ \ � N I \ I I \ (b^��/ 'sI11 630�\1 1 11 1 I\\ \ \\\ LnI \I 6ss I 1\\ 111�1 1 ` I II N I 1 �1\\ 1 IIIII\III l \\ \ \ I I \ I II u IIJ �) / \IIIIII \ I X // / �11\ II IIIII \II\ I I 1 1 II / ✓ I 1 I l \ \ I ( I II II I i 'IIIII \ / IIIIII �� I II I I \ l I � / I \ \ I , I► III I I , II , ,II � III \ \ \ \ / I I \ I I I 1 II II IIIII\ \ 1 �I� I I IIIII 0\ \ I ) 0lll I I l III \ III 1 APN 0520058012 I I — \� II \ I I I IIIIIIIIII I \III P ARCEL K APN0520054080lb \\\ p APN 0520058011 \ \ 63 �^`' / / / III`°; I I I I I N 11 I I \ \ I I IIII \ 11 ID1111111111 )III l I \ �� I I I \ I IIIIII / ( IIIIIII\II►I\i ----- \ (0"' X Illlllll I III \ \ \ III\\\\\\\ I \�---- �\ \_�� , , l l �,II,,I, I / ► \ 1 \ IIII\\IIII I \\ � \630 �\ �--Z / / 1 f\ICI � I I I I \ 1\ 1 0 �/�� lljl�ll�� APN 0520054063 \6 \ I I \ III I 20 \ I I 1 111 I IDI I I I III \ \✓ �� I \ \ lllllh\.. \1 �� � �) I I I � I I I 16TH STREET (PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY) FAIRWEATHER COVE ESTATES \ I \ I I I / ■ W q F TACOMA • SEATTLE • SPOKANE •TRI-CITIES 2215 North 30th Street, Suite 200 Tacoma, WA 98403 253.383.2422 TEL 253.383.2572 FAX www.ahbl.com WEB Project Title: AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT SITE 36 Client AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 408 915 FOURTH STREET NE AUBURN, WA 98002-4499 JEFFREY L. GROSE 2220870.50 Issue Set & Date: FEBRUARY 6, 2023 `•nL LAN" �7 11 /13/2023 .N NOTICE ALTERATION OF THIS DOCUMENT SHALL INVALIDATE THE PROFESSIONAL SEAL AND SIGNATURE. PUBLICATION OF THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT DEROGATE FROM RESERVED OWNERSHIP RIGHTS IN IT. THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR USE ONLY FOR THE PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE TITLE BLOCK AND IS NOT TO BE USED FOR REPAIR, REMODEL OR ADDITION TO THAT PROJECT OR FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT. 0 A Q11/13/23 Q11 /06/23 Revisions: -ADDED WETLAND 11O' BUFFER - ADDED WETLAND FLAGS AND BOUNDARY Sheet Title OVERALL PARCEL AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY Designed by: Drawn by: Checked by: FS DF Sheet No. 1 1 of 1 Sheets AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICTS - SITE 35 CRITICAL AREAS REPORT APPENDIX B : WETLAND SUMMARY Auburn School District — Site 35 B November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC WETLAND A SUMMARY Approximate Sizes . ft.): _ T r k .r Cowardin pEM/FO Classification': i i �* , ,C= HGM Classification': Depressional Wetland III Cate or 3. Wetland Buffer 110 ft./150 ft. Width°: - Sample Plot 3 Total': Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes Present /N ? Hydric Soil De leted Matrix p Indicator? Wetland Hydrology Yes Present? Summary of Findings The forested area predominately consists of a red alder (Alnus rubra) black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) with an understory of largely consisting of Dominant Vegetation: red -osier dogwood (Cornus sericea) salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and slough sedge (Carex obnupta). The soils observed in the wetland consisted of a surface layer (0-5 inches) of very dark brown (10YR2/2) silty loam with a layer (5-18 inches) of brown Soil Profile: (10YR4/2) sandy silt containing prominent strong brown (7.5YR4/6) redox concentrations beneath. Primary Hydrological Hydrologic support for Wetland A is primarily provided by shallow Support: groundwater and seasonal discharge from Wetland B. Wetland Data Plot: Upland Data Plot: r• Notes: ' Classification based on Cowardin et al. (1979). ' HGM classification based on Brinson, M.M. (1993) and Ecology's rating system (Hruby and Yahnke 2023). 'Wetland rating was determined based on the guidelines defined in the local municipal code. ° Wetland buffer was determined based on the local municipal code. s Sample plot total includes the collective amount of wetland and upland samples plots examined to define the wetland boundary. Auburn School Districts — Site 35 B November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC WETLAND B SUMMARY Approximate Sizes . ft.): _ Cowardin PEM/SS Classification': HGM Classification': Depressional Wetland III Cate or 3. Wetland Buffer 60 ft./80 ft. Width°: Sample Plot N/A Totals• Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes Present /N ? Hydric Soil Not Evaluated Indicator? Wetland Hydrology Yes Present? Summary of Findings Based on aerial imagery, Wetland B appears to predominantly consist of Dominant Vegetation: emergent vegetation within patches of shrub vegetation intermixed throughout. Soil Profile: Given its offsite location, soils were not evaluated. Primary Hydrological Hydrologic support for Wetland B appears to be direct precipitation and Support•' shallow groundwater. Additional support potentially includes stormwater discharge from the surrounding areas. Wetland Data Plot: Upland Data Plot: N/A N/A Notes: Classification based on Cowardin et al. (1979). z HGM classification based on Brinson, M.M. (1993) and Ecology's rating system (Hruby and Yahnke 2023). 'Wetland rating was determined based on the guidelines defined in the local municipal code. a Wetland buffer was determined based on the local municipal code. s Sample plot total includes the collective amount of wetland and upland samples plots examined to define the wetland boundary. Auburn School Districts — Site 35 B November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICTS -SITE 35 0 - CRITICAL AREAS REPORT APPENDIX C: WETLAND DATASHEETS Auburn School Districts — Site 35 C November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Prrgect 5t6e: �, �� Ci county: Sampling Date: ApplscandOwrner, State: in�sampling Point: , Investigator(s): n i 1A, Section. Township, flange: Lanrfionn (hillske, terrace, etc.)- Local relief (concave, convex, none): slope (°fa); Subregion (LRR): -- Lat; Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit fame: NM etassifrcation: Are eiirrmatic ! hydrologic conditions on the site typical tot this time of year? Yes © No 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) - - Are Vegetation ©. S6I O. or I sydrology [], signftantly disturbad? Are " 4annal CircumsSancee presrsnt? Yes KNo C] Are Vegetation ©, sail IJ. or Hydrology ©, naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY GP FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No iiydric Soil Present? Y Is the Sampled Area No © 1 within a Watiand7 Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 10 .--. No © f, Remarks: VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Tree Str�xtum (Plot size: 71 Absolute DoRriant Indicator j Dorntnance Test Worksheets 3. L (�•l) Cav Wo f I 2. ) °J z5 r Number of Dominant Species That Are.t Bl FACW, or FAC: �~ (A) I(ofI 3. - -- Total Number of Dominant (B) J 4. — — - I Specles Across All Strata: j1 60% W __ 2V1* � _ _ = Total Cover I Percent of Dominant Species (AIB) SaniirtglShrub Stratum (Plot size: -� ) t That Are 08L, FACW, or FAC: t. 7,U51 Prevalence Index worksls et: 2• Tote! 0/ Cover of: ufe3 3• oBL species x1 m 4• _ FACW species x2= E FAC species x3 = W/o = 20% w = Total Cover � FACU species X4 2 _ ljerb stratum (Plot size: j UPL species x5 3. Goiunm Totals: (A) () p -&Z Prevalence index = BIA = — 3. -- l# drophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4• -- --- -- - a i — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5• _ 2 - Dominance Test is 5• - - -- © 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0' 7' _ 13 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) € g• _- __- l 5-wetiandNonVascutarPlants' Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 50% 2WX; M = Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wettand hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (P€ot size: _ ) be present, unless disturbed or problematic, 2, - - -- -- - - � Hydrophyft = = 24°Ia 50°!a Total Cover Vegetation Yes oc No Present? $ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum�09 f Remarks: US Army Corps of Englneers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -- Version 2.0 Project Site: SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth matrix Padox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Typal Loo Texture — Remarks 'Type: C= Concentration, irDepletion, RfvYRedueed Matrix, CS =Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL='ore Lining, M=Ma€r€x t lydric Sot! lr�dicators: (Applicable to all LRR$, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hyddc s : c © Histoso! (A1) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A1[l) 0 Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (SS) © Ref Parent Material (TF2) ❑ SWok Hisk (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (FI) (except MLRA 1) © Very Shallow Dark Surface (TFI2) ❑ Hydrogen Suite (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Depletes BefoW 0i* Surface (At 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (123) © Thick70Ark Surma{Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (177) 'indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, © Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F6) unless disturbed or rxomaflc. I Restrictive i ayer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Weiland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators (mWmurn of one required; check all that apply) Hydrlc Solis Present? Yes ;�w No ❑ ❑ Surface Water {A1) ❑ Water -Stabled Leaves (E39) ❑ Hlgh Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ❑ Saturation (A3) © Sail crust (B11) © Water Marks (131) © Aquatic Invertebrates (013) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) t]xidlzed Rhlxospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (G4) ❑ Iron Deposits 05) ' ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tiled Soils (08) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (86) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (Di) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) © Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (89) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No 10�— Depth (inchs): Secondary Indicators (2 or mare required) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Drainage Patterns (81 p) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (CS) ❑ Geomorphic Position (02) © ShallowAqultard (D3) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (05) © Raised Ant Mounds (DO) (LRR A) © Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No Depth (inches}: Wetland Hydrology Present? (Includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Yes X No ❑ US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast region -,C Project Site: CkylCounty- �rk - Sampling pate: X) frJ -2 J 5 ApplicarrVt]svner, r ,::i ,: 1 ^ !` • Staler.+.! Sampling Point: . Invesfigator(s): ' 7, s d , _• g Section, Township, Rangel Landforrn (Niislope, terrace, etc.): ') 1r v,.-..• Local relief (concave, convex, Wane): Slope Subregion (LAR}. Lai: Long: Datum: _- Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classlhcaftn: _-- -- -- _-- Are climatic 1 raydrologic conditions on the site typical far this time of year? Yes Q No E3 (4# no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ©, Soil ©, or Hydrology ©, signdicantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances° present? Yes N Are Vegetation [I, Sail ❑, or Hydreiogy ©, naturally problematic? (It needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) T� SUMMARY OF F1NDING$ -Attach site reap showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. _ �.._- Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes �.tao -03 Hydric Sal Present? Yes Q No Wetland hydrology Present? Yes 0 No � Remarks: Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes © No X VEGETATION - Use sclent€€c names of plants Trt ge Stratum (Plot sixe:.�� 1 P`30Y A Absolute ]ffr Dominant r7 indicator StWUS Dominance Tit 1fllcsritsheet: Number of Dominant Species J 2. P_J_itu %C. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 3. `:h�l £ ■ r� Z � -- ToW Number of Dominant 15 4. Q, . # � � rAC jj Species Across All Strata-.(B) 50% w - 20% = — -- l .602C = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 60 That Are 08L, FACW,, or FAC: (�B) Saplinc/Shrub Stra um (Plot size: „ } 1. _ QfRc r - - -- - ' Gar _�,+'� Prevalence Index workshoet: 2. x. �J s ' Tsai % Cover of Multi& bX; 3. 08L species x# = 4. FACWspecles x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 60% 20% = Tataf Cover FACU specie, x4 = kwp SFr � m (Plot size: } UPI, species x5 = 1. ) M U 0 Column Totals: fA3 (8) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. _ _ Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4- -- - _ 0 f - Rapid Test for Hydrnoydc vegetation p 2 - Domirrance Test is�50% $• --- - --- a 3 - Prevaienoo Index is <3.01 ?' -- -- - -- -- -- 4 - Marphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting Q g - data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) S -Wetland Non-Vaswlar € lants t0• _ -- -. — _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 50% =, 20% = = Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic- Wo ViD Siraiurn (Plot size: } t _ 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes No 50% = 20% = Totai Cover Present? 1/6 Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: �l US Army Carps of Engineers Westem Fountains, Valleys, and Coast -- Version 2.0 Project Site: &-Ifni Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed: to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indlcatm.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (rrmi ) % Color {moist] % Type' Loci Texture Point: J P-IL 'Type: C= Concentrations, D=Depletion, RM Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains_—kocation: PLmPore #fining, M=Matmc Remarks Hydrlc Sail Indicators: lApplicable to all LRRs, unless otlnenwise noted,) indicators for Problematic Hydit Soils' © Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (SS) ❑ 2 cm Muck (AID) ❑ Hlstic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matnx tS6) © Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Slack Ristic (A$) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow hark Surface ('fF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (1`2) ❑ Other (Explain In Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) © Depieted Matrix (F3) © Thia Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Su�ce (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral IS 1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3lradicatars of hydropinytic vageiation and wetland hydmiogy must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive layer (if present): Type: Depth {inches): f Hydric Sohn Present? Yes ❑ NO Remarks: HYDROLOGY _ ..... Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minknnum of one required; check all that apply) ❑ Surface Water (At) ❑ Water Stained Leaves (139) ❑ H•sgo Water Table (A2) (except ULRA 1, 2, 4A, and 40) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (BI1) ❑ WaW darks (BI) © Aquatic Invertebrates (B 13) © Sediment Deposits (132) Q Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) ❑ Oxidized RNmspheres along Living Roots (CS) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (04) Q Presence of Reduced Iron (04) ❑ Iron Deposits (Bs) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (06) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (DI) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation VisNe on Aerial Imagery M7) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely VegetaW Concave Surface (Be) Field ObserveMons: Surface Water Present? Yes © No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No Depth (inches); Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Water•Stalned leaves (BS) JMLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) ❑ Drainage Patterns (B10) © DrySaawn VYater Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (02) © Shallow Aquiterd (D3) p FA"eutrat Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (L.RR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Saturation Present? Yes © No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? (includes capillary tense) Desc6be Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerie# photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Yes ❑ NO I US Army Corps of Engineers Westerns Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -- Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Cost Region !1' �L Project Site: Js fG - �s� -- C. yfCounty: Y `�2It L. Sampling Date: t 1o, Z5-T> 11-11 r•, State: Sara Ilya Point: �r 3 AppllCanfli:]wner: '�� •� �'�_�._-- ..� � P g Investotor{s): -,W ..- 1 section. Township. Range: Landform {hilislope, terrace, etc.k 's, a s c �� 3 {G�r ._. - --- Local relief (concave, convex. none): SWpe 0A): a � Subregion (LRR): Ut tong: Datum; Soil Map Unit Name: t4vvl classificailon: Are climate 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ❑ No ❑ (if no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetatiors ©, sop (J, or Fiydrotogy ❑, s`sgniffcantiy disturbed? Are "Normal C#rcumsfances" present? Yes �a ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soa ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FIPEL)jKUS - AUaeit site map snowing sampling polm locations, transeets, imponantTemures, erc. HydrophytiC Vegetation Present? Yes �0— No ❑ Is the San►pled Area 3�ytiric Sol# Present? Yes No ❑ Yes Na ? within 8 illfetlarrdi Wetland "rology Present? Yes Ty —No ❑ Remarks: VEGETATION - Use sclentFiic names of plants t) Absolute Dominant Indicator L1vri7lrtartce Test Vllvritsl►e: Tres Stratum (Plat sire: - -- -- °° Cover 2-99 S er�eS? 1�•�- - Stdtus P Number of Doininant Species 2. f �� �f}Gp �✓ �AC r� That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: — (A) 3. _- - __ - Total Number of Dominant (B) 4- Skies Across All Strata: 50%» 200Io = « Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBI., FACK or FAC: // r (vg) 5aplinrlShntb Straierm (Plot size: to 1. ° :�1� r ! €' AL Prevalence Index woftheet: tad Totaf,% Cover of: lbeiv bv: 3, - l 08L species x1 = 4. -- — 5 FACW species x2 = 5 FAC spies x3 = 50% = ail°/° = k ,. = Total Cover FACii pecies • r. t _ x4 w- Fferb Stratum {Plot size: ] UPL species _ - ; _ Y x5 W 1. Ga -- `r U�" Cotomn Totals: 2. -- -- -- - — Prevalence Index M S/A 3. Hydrophyt€c Vegetation Indicators; 4. -- --- a 1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5, -- -- - -- _ -- _ -- "---2 - Don -wane Testis>50% 6. -- -- _. -- — _. ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 9.0' 7. --- -- 4 - Morpholo ilcal Adaptations' {Provide supporting 8. -- _ data to Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9• ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. - _. E3 Problematic Hydrophylic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. Spry° 20°% _ Total Cover i 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, Unless disturbed or prohlan'mft. Woody Vine Stratum {Plot size: ; Ffydrophytic 50% = 20% = = Total Cover Yeget #vn Present? % Bare Ground In Herb Stratum Remarks; L"VL 4L—Y, _ f 0 , j /6 ` Yes � No ❑ US Array Corps of Er4neers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Project Site: ttrml Sarnollna Point: 5 ` ':5 Profile Description: (Descr#be to the depth needed to document fire Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (#rx:hes) Color (mot t) % Color (moist) % Type' LOCI � F - - Texture Remarks �C 'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletlon, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. kocation: PLwPore Lining, lu =MaWx [ Hydric Soil Indicators: (ApplicaM€e to all LRRS, unless otherwise noted ) Indicators for Problematic Hydr€c $ans': ❑ Hlstosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (SS) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) © Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped MabIx M) © Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Btark HMe (A3) © Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) © Very Shallow Dark Swface (TF12) © Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) © Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172) Other (Explain in Remarks) © Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) © Thick Dark Surface (Al2) © Redox Dark Surface (FB) ❑ - Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) © Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31r4catom of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, © Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (178) unless disturbed or probtemaft. Restrict€ve Layer (if present): ' Type: i Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No ❑ s Remarks: F f Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary tors (mWmum of one required; check all that apply) Seomidit R tutors (2 orMft -required) E] Surface Water (Al) © Water -Stained Leaves (88) ❑ " water -Stained Lgaves @9) 0 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 44, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) ❑ Saturation (A3) © Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Aattems (810) € ❑ Water Marks (W) © Aquatic Invertebrates (813) ❑ Dry -Season Wow Table (C2) 0 Sediment Deposits (82) © Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (01) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C8) 0 Drift t?epostts (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizosphares aiong Living Rook (0) K Geamorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (154) Q Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (133) © Iron Deposits W) © Recent Iran Reduci#ot In Tiled Soils (CO FAC•Neutrai Test (D5) f f © Surface Sall Cracks (BB) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (DI (LRR A) © Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) © Other (Expiain in Remarks) ❑ Frost44eave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BS) Feld Observations! Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ Depth (inches). Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ Depth (Inches): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes �A€a (includes capillary fringe) l Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitot'ing well. aerial photos. previous Inspectlons), tf avallabie: Remarks: m US Army Corps of Englneers Western Mountains, Valleys. and Coast -- Versions 2.0 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICTS - SITE 35 CRITICAL AREAS REPORT APPENDIX D : WETLAND RATING FORM Auburn School Districts — Site 35 D November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC Wetland name or number A, RATING SUMMARY Y — Western Washington V-3 Nameofwetland forlD#): �i /, Date of site visit: Y Rated by.. f 11 ^ Trained by Ecology?,, *ds �No Date of training_ HGM Class used for rating 9, Wetland has multiple HGM classes? N NOTE: Form is not complete without the rewired figures (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map -�- OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY -� abased on functions} or special characteristics—) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I -Total score = 23 - 27 Category 11-Total score = 20 - 22 ')e- Category III - Total score = 16 -19 Category IV - Total score = 9 -15 FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat Water Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H 7ZL H M L H M L Landscape Potential H L H L H L Value M L H M L H L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above A)IA- Wetland gating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Version 2, July 2023 Score for each function based on three ratings border of ratings is not important) 9 = H, H, H 8 H, H,. M 7=H,H,L 7 = H, M, M 6=H,M,L 6=M,M,M 5=H,L,L 5=M,M,L 4=M,L,L 3=L,L,L Wetland name or number Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Cowardin plant classes W D 1.3, H 11, H 1.4 Hydroperdods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 43, D 5.3 ..._--------------- 1 km Polygon., Area that extends I km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and total habitat H 2. 1, H 2.2, H 2.3 1 Z Screen capture of map of —303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands ------------ — -------- ... Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H L4 Hydroperiods H 1,2 Poncled depressions Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure} R 2A Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (con be added to onotherfigure) R 41 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 23, R 5.2 I km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and total habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 23 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Ft 11 R 3.2, R 33 Lake FrinRe Wetlands . . ..... ....... . ... . ... ...... .. ... Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L4.1, H 1.1, . ........ . ...... Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Boundary of area within M ft of the wetland (con be added to another figurejwW 7H1.4 L 1.2 L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends I km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and total habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L13 Slope Wetlands $: brie ....... ............ Cowardin plant classes H L1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant raver of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants SI-3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (con be added to figure above) S4.1 Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S2.1,S5.1 1 km Polygon. Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and total habitat H 2. 1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) s S 3.1, S 12 - ---------------------- Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA. 2014 Update Rating Form — Version 2, July 2023 Wetland name or number HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NQ go to 2 YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe —go to 1.1 1.1 is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES -- Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the fors for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe, it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat, and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO go to 3 YES —The wetland class is Flats your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for aepressionai wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size, At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). go to 4 YES — The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. l]oes the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheet flow, or in a swale without distinct barks, The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. N _ go to 5 YES -- The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually E3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). Wetland Rating System for western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form —Version 2, July 2023 Wetland name or number 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. tgo to 6 YES —The wetland class is Riverine E: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. �� —go to 7 YES —The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched but has no obvious natural outlet. l N©i - ao to 8 YES —The wetland class is Depressional S. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a rivedne floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10%or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than JD% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating SIo e f Riveri Slope + Depressional rbepressional a We —Fr n ge rage Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for westerns WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Version 2, July 2023 Wetland name or number ❑EPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - indicators that the site functions to improve roster quality D 1.0. Goes the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wet€and: Wetland is a depression or fiat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an interrriittently flu ing stream or ditch OR hly constricted permanently flowing outlet, M �� 31 W ft points Z Wetland has an u n con stricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points µ 1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in. below the surface for duff layers is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions). Yes = 4 , 0-0 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 95% of area points S Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > M of area points µ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants ?i Ilzo of area points =1 e J Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <f/zo of area pointsµ 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal-ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded far at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > X total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is ? Y total area of wetland—naA,%,&ww,. 6y•p w+- 31p, i*44aAS.,� points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is t Y total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score ls. _ W 12-16 = N fi- 1= M ; 3-5 = L Record the raring on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Pqq_sA,,,a 4 ft 4,,,,, , ,.,j = No = D D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yesµ 1 a= A D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes =1 49 = 4 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? e701Source Yes =1 o ' U Total for D 2 - Add the points in the boxes above Rating of landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H _1 or 2 M D = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 rni) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes =1 c oj D D 32 Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? es 1 No = 0 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? (Answer YES if there is a TMDL in development or in effect for the basin in which the unit is found.) & 2 No= 0 � Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: _Y-2.4 tV 1= M 0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 update Rating Form — Version 2, July 2023 Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number Ar ©EPRESSIIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wet€and: Wetiand is a depressions or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) paints : 4 Wetland has an intermittently flawing stream/ditch, CAR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points Wetland is a fiat depression (question 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch paints = 1 Z Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage durin.; wet Periods: Estimate the height of panding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of perm anent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of panding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points : 7 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet Marks of pondinmeawarter' points = 5 Marks are at leat 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points � 3 The wetland is a wetland paints = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points =1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 ins) points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin con tr€}outing surface water to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basics is less than 10 tunes the area of the unit points The area of the basics is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points 3 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points In the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: , _,12-16 = li b-11= M� 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page ❑ 5.€ , Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? I_ s = Noµ 0 D 5.2. is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes =1 K7 0 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses r 'dential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? es =�A No = 0 € Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above Z Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _3 = H _J, 1 or 2 4.�0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. Is the unit in a landscape that has flooding Problems? Choose the description that best matches conditions i around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest scare If more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow downgradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): • Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately downgradient of unit. paints = 2 • Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther downgradient. � ..+ actast*-I&I points =S • Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points = 1 • The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 • There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes = 2 f�o.` 0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: ,2-4 = H _q- 1 = M _0 : L Wetiand Rating System for Western WA: 2014 update Rating Form — Version 2, July 2023 Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number A These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.A. Fives the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of % ac if the unit Is at least 2.5 ac, or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 Emergent 3 structures, points Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: paints =1 _ Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 1f the unit has a Forested class, check rf LThe Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, mass{groundcove r) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H L2, Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland if the unit is r Z5 ac, or % ac if the unit is at least 2.5 ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: ooints = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated,,,,,,,.. 3 types present: points : 2 C]ccasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points Saturated only [)r� 1 type present: points - Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland intermittently or seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetiand 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at feast 10 ftl, Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoll, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canada thistle If you counted: a 19 species paints 2 5 -19 species points < 5 species - points a H 1.4. interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudffats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high_ None = 0 points All three diagrams in this row are High = 3 points (LO) Low =1 point Wetiand Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Version 2, July 2023 f� 5 Moderate saints 13 Z N Wetland name or number H I.S. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in. diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (dbh > 4 in.) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extend at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over open water or a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent heaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) 3 At feast Y ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) -Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 above for the list of strata and H 1.5 in the manual for the list of a Tess€ve plant species) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: _15-18 = H _)�_7-14 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat polygo accessible from the wetland, Calculate: % relatively undisturbed hab€tat, rni� j(% moderate and low intensity land uses)n)4 = % Total accessible habitat is: a il,3 (33.3%) of 1 krn Polygon 20-33% of 1 km Polygon 10-19% of 1 km Polygon e 10% of 1 km Polygon points points = 2 points =1 points : 0 H 2.2. Total habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % relatively undisturbed habitat_ + I(% moderate and low Intensity land uses)12),,A = % Total habitat a 50% of Polygon points = 3 Total habitat 10-50% and In 1-3 patches pointsµ 2 Total habitat 1€3 5096 and 3 points1 Total habitat ¢ 10% of 1 kin Polygon - - points = 0 H 2.3. land use intensity in 1 krn Polygon: > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) — Z 5 50% of 1 km Poly on is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the noint5 in the boxes above Z Rating of Landscape Potential if score is: A-6 = H _k4 1-3 = M j__a 1= L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3. L hoes the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 --- It has 3 or more Priority Habitats within 1€ 0 m (see next page) --- It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal Iists) -- It Is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW Priority Species — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources data -- It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shor ine Master Plan, or In a watershed plan site ha 1 r 2 Priority Habitats (listed on next page) within 100 rn points G Site sloes not meet an!of the criteria eve _ points = 0 1 ,_ Rating of Value 1f score is: _Z : H _)(=I j if = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14 Rating Farm -Version 2, July 2023 Wetland name or number _A- WDFW Priority Habitats See complete descriptions of Priority Habitats listed by WDFW, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2€ 08 (current year, as revised). Priority Habitat and Species List.133 This list was updated for consistency with guidance from WDFW. This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the Priority Habitat. All vegetated wetlands are by definition a Priority Habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed by this rating system. Count how many of the following Priority Habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: — Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). Siodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife. This habitat automatically counts if mapped on the PHS online map within 100m of the wetland. If not mapped, a determination can be made in the field. Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth In soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. Fresh Deepwater: Lands permanently flooded with freshwater, including environments where surface water is permanent and often deep, so that water, rather than air, is the principal medium within which the dominant organisms live. Substrate does not support emergent vegetation. Do not select if Instream habitat is also present, or if the entire Deepwater feature is included In the wetland unit being rated (such as a pond with a vegetated fringe). ----- Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forts on shallow soils over bedrock. Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Do not select if Fresh Deepwater habitat is also present. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Ppget Sound Nearshore. /-Old-growth'Mature rests: Old -.growth west of Cascade crest —Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a muR4- Bred canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 treesfac (20 trees./ha ) > 32 in. (81 cm) diameter at breast height (dbh) or > 200 years of age. Mature forests — Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in. 53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. 133 http:j/wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfwOD165.pdf Wetland hating System for Western VITA: 2014 update 15 Rating Form ---Version 2, July 2023 Wetland name or number A- -- Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important. For single oaks or oak stands <0.4 ha in urban areas, WDFW's ManaFy,ement Recommendations for Oregon White 0akI34 provides more detail for determining if they are Priority Habitats Riparian: The area adjacent to freshwater aquatic systems with flowing or standing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — Snags and Lags: "frees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of a 20 in. (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in. (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. -- Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie. 11 https:Hwdfw.wa.govjpublications/00030/wdfw00030.pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form — Version 2, July 2023 Wetland name or number P CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS _ Wetland Type ca tego ry Chvrk +Lff r�ny criteria th! r appry o the Ymtt ond. Circle the catj?Wry when tree OAPvPprFPre rriteriv afe mLeL SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? - The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes - Go to SC 1.1 No Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? Yes = Category I No �- Go to SC 1.2 fit' I SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? - -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If non-native species are Spartina, see chapter 4.8 in the fit' manual. — At feast % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- cat li mowed grassland. —The wetland has at least two of the following features. tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category If SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Does the wetland overlap with any known or historical rare plant or rare & high -quality ecos m polygons on the WNHP ?F Yes = Category I No- Go to SC 2.2 Cat. I SC 2.2. Does the wetland have a rare plant species, rare ecosystem (e.g., plant community), or hi ality common ecosystem that may qualify the site as a WHCV? Contact WNHP for resources to help determine the presence of these elements. Yes -Submit datp to WA Natural Heritage Program for determination 136 Go to SC 2.3 No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Did WNHP review the site within 30 days and determine that it has a rare plant or ecosystem that meets their criteria? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES, you will still need to rate the wetia► d based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in. or more of the first 32 in. of the soil profile? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No - Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in. deep over bedrock, or art impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on to of a lake or pond? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 o - t a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% raver of mosses at ground level, AN east a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes : Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: if you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at feast 16 in. deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. Cat. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% coven with 5itka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species for combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Yes = Category I bog No = Not a bog zss https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPdata https://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/amp_ph_sighting-form.pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form - Version 2, July 2023 Wetland name or number SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Hoes the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as Priority Habitats? gyou answer YES, you will still need to rote the wedand based on its functions. — Old -growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings: with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in. (81 cm) or more. — Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in. (53 cm). Yes- Category I Mo Not a forested wetland for this section Cat.1 SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? — The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks —The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) — The lagoon retains some of its surface water at low tide during spring tides Yes — Go to SC 5.1 IVo Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon cat. I SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species in H 1.5 in the manual). — At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- cat. II mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than I/xn ac (4350 ft�) Yes = Category I No = Category I1 SC 6.0. lnterdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? if you answer YES, you w ll still need to rate the wedand used on its habitat functions. in practical terms that means the following geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 — Graylancl -Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Cat I --- Ocean Shares-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 and Ocean Shores Blvd SW, including lands west of E. Oceans Shores Blvd Skill. Yes — Go to SC 6.1 P-6 Not an interdunal wetland for eating Cat.11 SC GA. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form ;rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of €unction) ? - Yes = Category i No -- Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Cat. III Yes = Category 11 No — Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 at, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Yes = Category III No = Category IV Cat. IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Ai If you answered No for all types, enter ONot Applicable" on Summary Form 1A_ Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18 Rating Form — Version 2,1uly 2023 �r - rr y i .t y t, C� ogle Earth 'II ISI ••r1 W �__ra►..+a�pa��: 1 ��� 1 n�1�� 4�� �� �'- •� • it 1 �2• �l OL CA r =y`• t Y i i ffl �+i� � .i ..i�� -sue• � c�' r yr, � � i��n�`a$rq -•i. %i,.. op � F lb �k E 'ftf n be m L+J r •fir %r •.. ti r.r o. - t October 26, 2023 A1, na F':sl► s� I:zit Pn�_ fir r iTk i Water Quality Atlas t -r r. SF *4 y f cow l�SR,trf - r , I kill AAA Miles Kmg County. WA Stm Parks GIS, Esrl, HERE. Garmin, SzMGraph, 0 0.5 1 2 Geo,TeOmdogM. Fnc, KSMASA, USGS. Bureau of land Management. EPA, NPS, USDA Assessed Water/Sediment Water -_� Category 5 - 303d Nio Category 4C Category 4B Category 4A Category 2 w4go Category I Sediment ® Category 5 - 303d EM Category 4C Category 4B ® Category 4A fif Category 2 err Category 1 Water Quality Standards W* All Standards 10126123, 2:07 PM Pierce County 1 Washington State Department of Ecology DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Fierce County State of Washington Ecology homepage a Water & Shorelines a Water improvement > Total Maximum Daily load }process a Directory of projects > Pierce County Water quality improvement projects Select the waterbody or pollutant name to find more information about the specific project Waterbody Name(s) Pollutant(s) Status Project Lead(s) Dissolved Clarks and Meeker Oxygen EPA approved and Donovan Gray Creeks Sediment Has an implementation 360-407-6407 Fecal Coliform plan Dissolved Clover Creek Oxygen Under development i7onovL# Graff Fecal Coliform 360-407-6407 Temperature Commencement Baw f Dioxin EPA approved Donovan Grav 360-407-6407 Gallup River Fecal Coliform EPA approved and Donovan Gra•: Watershed Has implementation plan Multi -parameter 360-407-6407 Puyallup River Donovan Gray Watershed Ammonia-N EPA approved 36Ei-407 640i BOD (5-day), Sediment Puyallup River: Donovan Craw EPA approved Upper White River Temperature 360-407-6407 Puyallup River: Pgyallup River pH Under development Donovan Gray. Water -shed> Lower 36E3-407-6407 White Inver EPA approved and Fecal Coliform Donovan Gray South Prairie Creek Has an implementation Temperature 360-407-6407 plan Total EPA approved Walaato Lake Donovan Gray Phosphorus 360-407-6407 https:lifortress.ova.goviecyfershareANq, WaterQualitylmprovementiTMDLI'ierceCounty,htm 112 Wetland name or number MATING SUMMARY Name of wetland (or ID #): — Western Washington Date of site visit: 4ZWA_3 Rated by tA k k^- Trained by Ecology? 2 Yes No Date of training �1� HGM Class used for rating � Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Y 'A'N NOTE: Form is not complete without the required figures (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY _ (based on functions_tor special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based On FUNCTIONS Category I —Total score = 23 - 27 Category ll —Total score = 2€3 - 22 ?L Category III —Total score = 16 -19 Category IV —Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat Water Quality Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H L Value H M L H L H L Score Based on Ratings TOTAL 2. Category based on SPECIAL. CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I 809 I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Farm w Version 2„ July 2023 Score for each function rased on three ratings (order of ratings is not Important) 9=H,H,H 8=H,H,M 7=H,H,L 7=H,M,M 6=H,M,L S=M,M,M 5-H,L,L 5 = M, M, L 4wM,L,L 3 = L, L, L Wetland name or number Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands tlaR af: '" isviiei "i�er)s: ff� # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiodsj D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to onother figure) 5! D 12, D 52 Map of the contributing basin 1 D 4.3, D 5.3 ] -- 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and total habitat I H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 m _ Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters In basin (from Ecadogy website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map.d#s ,: it►:ainsrgrsie�t�is: -" . ' '-�i;�e [ Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 i Hydroperiods H 1.2 1 . Ponded depressions --------------- R M Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (con be added to another figure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (con be added to another figure) ---------------- R 4.1 -------- Map of the contributing basin - _.. R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2� 1 km polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland. edge - including H 2. 1, H 2.2, H 2.3 polygons for accessible habitat and total habitat i Screen capture of asap of 303(d) listed waters In basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands illlap fif: - - 'fts'a�t�iisi�r:gt�e�Cir�s, " " - �i�te # " Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, 1.4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous lants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) 1 L 2.2 1 krn Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 _polygons for accessible habitat and total habitat s Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 1 Screen capture of fist of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 I-glon ± Wp.tlanris Map of: 70 nsviier qu"tions.. IF'll�re # i _._......�.......�...�......�...___..__------. w..w.. J Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 i Hydroperiods ! H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants i S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants -TS (can be added to figure above) 4.1 Boundary of 150 €t buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and total habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, 5 3.2 _.._ Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) 53.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2 Rating Form -Version 2, July 2023 Wetland name or number u J HCM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described mast apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? (00—goto2 YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe — go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Ri►rerine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Vidal Fringe, it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. _2. The entire wetland unit is flat, and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. — go to 3 YES —The wetland class is Flats if your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size, �At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). go to 4 YES —The wetland class is lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), The water flaws through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheet flow, or in a swale without distinct banks, The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. i go to 5 YES —The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft sleep). Wetland Rating system for Western WA. 2014 Update Rating Form — Version 2, July 2023 Wetland name or number 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. A) go to 6 YES _.. The wetland class is Riverine 'VOTE. The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO--goto7 YES he wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched but has no obvious natural outlet. NO —go to 8 YES —The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNrr (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scared. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column Z is less than 10IX of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unlit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA; 2014 Update 4 Rating Form — Version Z, July 2023 Wetland name or number DEPRESSIDNAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.4. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. �'"" �" points =ice Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1 � Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points =1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in. below the surface for duff la-yeris true clay or true organic (use NR(S definitions). Yes : 4 1&. 0 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungraxed plants > 95% of area points - 5 Wetland has persistent, ungraxed plants a YS of area - r-PP-J-b 4► as.R • may,-e- qw,, ,b points Wetland has persistent, ungraxed plants > r/xo of area points = 1 ?, Wetland has persistent, ungraxed plants <' jto of area points = 0 — D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal nondina. or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at feast 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland - Al-OV-490 points =� Area seasonally ponded is � Yr4 total area of wetland points = 2 Ll Area seasonally ponded is < A total area of wetland points z 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: _ 12-16 = H S6-11 = UM 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? es w No : R J D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes 1 No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes =1 0 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants corning into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-0 2.3? Source Yes =1 00 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Z Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = l l V. I or 2 ; M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. is the water tq alitY improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1, Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303{d} list? Yes =1 lsi- ti t D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or suits -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? es - 1 No = 0 I D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? (Answer YES if there is a TMDL in development or in effect for the basin in which the unit is found.) 2 Noµ 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above Z Rating of Value if scare is: )�2-4 � 1= M D = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Version 2, July 2023 Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number DEPRESS ONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and strewn degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4. 1- Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream/ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points 20 Wetland is a flat depression (question 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch paints =1 Z Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet Periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to c 3 ft from surface or bottom of Nutlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to c 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points The wetland is a "headwater" wetland paints �J Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water pointsµ 1 Masks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points µ 0 D 4.3, Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 tunes the area of the unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 tunes the area of the: unit points3 The area of the basin Is more than 100 tunes the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 : H v4-641- M 0 5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Hoes the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? if es�:,L 1 No = 0 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate exams runoff? )� IW ,Yes = 1 � 0 D 5.3. is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land use residential at >1 resldence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? . es No = 0 Total for 0 5 Add the points in the boxes above Z Rating of landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H ,Y,2 ,14' or 2 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. is the unit in a landscape that has flooding arobs erns? Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the hiwhest score if more than one condition is met - The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow downgradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., Douses or salmon redds): Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately downgradient of unit. pointsµ 2 Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther downgradient. points <D Flooding from groundwater Is an issue In the sub -basin. points = 1 ■ The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. lrxpioin why points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as Important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes =2(N_=0 ] Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: __2-4 = H ',7L 1 M)_ ,,, , D = L Wetland stating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating form — Version 2, July 2023 Record the rating on the first purge Wetland name or number These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes, HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class, Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of Y. ac if the unit is at least 2.5 ac, or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: paints = 4 Emergent 3 structures: points : 2 --ZScrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points Forested (areas where trees have a 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/groundcover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland if the unit is r 2.5 ac, or Y ac if the unit is at least 2.5 ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points �D Saturated only 1 type present: points : 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Intermittently or seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 W. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species_ Do not include Eurasian milfoll, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canada thine If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 -19 species points 10 5 species points = 0 H 1A. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) its high, moderate, low, or none. if you have four or more plant c€asses or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. None = 0 points Low =1 plaint Moderate 2�solnts LAP, All three diagrams f - — In this row are High = 3 points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 `S Rating Form — Version 2, July 2023 Wetland name or number B H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetiand. The number of checks is the number of points. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in, diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags {dbh a 4 in.) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at ►east 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extend at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over open water or a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (a 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) '>"t least % ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-€aying by amphibians) €nvasive plants coves- less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 above for the list of strata and H 1.5 in the manual for the list of aggressive plant species) 5NO '] Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above S 1, Rating of Site Potential If score is: _15-18 = H �,,,, ,7-14 = M ?C €f-6 Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 21. Accessible habitat (include only habitat polygon accessible from the wetland. ire Calculate: %relatively undisturbed habitat�[(96 moderate and low intensity land uses)/2LO % Total accessible habitat is: a 1/5 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points �3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Total habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % relatively undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/21_ % Total habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Total habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Total habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points 4 A 1 Total habitat s 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points w (- 2) _ Z :S 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above Z Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 46 = H X-1-3 WKI ­�' 1= L Record the raring on the first page H 3.0. is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in caws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the fo0owing criteria: points = 2 -- It has 3 or more Priority Habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any piant or animaI on the state or federal lists[ — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW Priority Species ---•- It Is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources data — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a 5ho eh a Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site har 2 Priority Habitats (listed on next page[ within 300 m points =� Site does not meet any of the criteri Rating of Value If score is: _2 - H 'e-1 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 update 14 Rating Form - Version 2, July 2023 Wetland name or number IS WDFW Priority Habitats See complete descriptions of Priority Habitats listed by WDFW, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008 (current year, as revised). Priority Habitat and Species i.ist.133 This list was updated for consistency with guidance from WDFW. This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the Priority Habitat. All vegetated wetlands are by definition a Priority Habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed by this rating system. Count how many of the following Priority Habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetiand unit: - Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). -- Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife. This habitat automatically counts if mapped on the PH5 online map within 100m of the wetiand. If not mapped, a determination can be made In the field. - - Caves. A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft7.5 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. — Fresh Deepwater: Lands permanently flooded with freshwater, including environments where surface water is permanent and often deep, so that water, rather than air, is the principal medium within which the dominant organisms live. Substrate does not support emergent vegetation. Do not select if Instrearn habitat is also present, or if the entire Deepwater feature is included in the wetland unit being rated (such as a pond with a vegetated fringe). — Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. — Instrearn: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for Instream fish and wildlife resources. Do not select if Fresh Deepwater habitat is also present. — Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. -Z-0Id-growth/l1►%we forests: Old -growth west of Cascade crest - Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in. (81 cm) diameter at breast height (dbh) or a 200 years of age. Mature forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in. (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. " http://wd€w.wa.gov/pubiications/00165/wdfwOO165.pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA; 2014 Update 15 Rating Form — Version 2, July 2023 Wetland name or number 4 — Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oast/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important. For single oaks or oak stands <0.4 ha in urban areas, WDFW's Management Recommendations for QreRon White Oakz24 provides more detail for determining if they are Priority Habitats — Riparian: The area adjacent to freshwater aquatic systems with flowing or standing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. --- Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of a 20 in. (51 cm) in western Washington and are a 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 In. (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. — Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 4.5 - 6.5 ft (€3.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. — Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie. I https,//wdfw.wa.gory/Publications/00030/wdfw00030.pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form —Version 2,1uly 2023 Wetland name or number Q CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type _ Cawgory Cheek off any craerio that appey to the xwt:iand. Circle we whi: n m.- oppropriate criteriv are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes -Go to SC 1.1 No 'Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? Yes = Category l No - Go to SC 1.2 cat I SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? ---The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 10% cover of non-native p€ant species. If non-native species are Spartina, see chapter 4.8 in the cat. I manual. At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. Cat. It — The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category i No = Category 11 SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Does the wetland overlap with any known or historical rare plant or rare & high -quality ecosystem polygons on the WNHP ?M Yes = Category I No --Go to SC 2.2 Cat. I SC 2.2. Does the wetland have a rare plant species, rare ecosystem (e.g_, plant community), or high -quality common ecosystem that may qualify the site as a WHCV? Contact WNHP for resources to help determine the presence of these elements. Yes -Submit data to WA Natural Heritage Program for determination," Go to SC 2.3 o -foot a WHCV SC 2.3. Did WNHP review the site within 30 days and determine that it has a rare plant or ecosys em that meets their criteria? Yes : Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES, you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in. or more of the first 32 in. of the soil profile? Yes -- Go to 5C 3.3 No - Go to SC 3.2 5C 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in. deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Yes - Go to SC 33 eroNot a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND -517east a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes : Category I bag No - Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are: uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterions by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at feast 16 in. deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. Cat. I SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested t> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, Iodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white (sine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Yes = Category I hag No : Not a bog https://www.dnr.wa-gov/NHPdata h ttps ://www. d n r.wa .gov/Publications/am p_n h-sighti ng,_fo r m. pdf Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form - Version 2, July 2023 Wetland name or number — SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as Priority Habitats? If you answer YES, you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. — Old -growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in, (81 cm) or more, Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in. (53 cm). Yes = Category I (5= Not a forested wretiand for this section Cat, I SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? — The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks - The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during mast of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) The lagoons retains some of its surface water at low tide touring spring tides Yes — Go to SC 5.1 CM � Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon Cat. I SC 54. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? --The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species in H 1.5 in the manual). -- At least Y4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- Cat. it snowed grassland. ----- The wetland ss larger than I/io ac (4350 ft ) Yes = Category I Noµ Category li SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer YES, you willstill treed to rate the wetland based oo its habitatfunctions. In practical terms that means thefoIlowing geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 — Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Cat I Ocean Snores-Copalis. Lands wrest of SR 115 and 5R 109 and Ocean Shores Blvd SW, including lands west of E_ oceans Shores Blvd SW. Yes — Go to SC 6.1 0 Not an Intercfunal wetland for rating Cat. ii SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No — Go to 5C 6.2 SC G.Z. is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1. ac or larger? Cat. ill Yes : Category 11 No — Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Yes = Category III No = Category IV Cat. IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics J� If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form f Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 update 18 Rating Form —Version 2, July 2023 z '00, ------------ z 1A 400 ft A N �; `�' _ It •� Galin,} F' u �'A • �-� �� •. � � 4 P � � _ Fry r fr � ' �,� • w ] :..• y �.�`�,. � .. .@ iS11yH rP_ LaY�� _.�I �'1+Y•. S,'tt):•�•.�.r L'b '. �- f } �� _ '` 716 y rn z , fTi e t Las ik • sa r� vt - ,p•-` - m 3 �Aspy sddEl+saL°S U i�r� � r - Ilk .+~'�"' �. 1 �++ �,r '' a �; � i• � •fir �4 ,��L• s • + `d- �, 37.,�n-:A. - CD dL r : . � ,i ��+ Alit, ..M'��r � ` � �`' ' r 9+ ►.� l.f )• 4 October 25, 2023 A k _in a Pa, Ur `Y Water Quality Atlas Fi-v J, '--� ,r k �rnLrl Put i 'At —A SE ti. �,. aUCx i ill rJ¢! Tap" _ Zslard _ 1 r i dend r Cx7. out Assessed Water/Sediment Water Category 5 - 303d Category 4C Category 4B Category 4A Category 2 Category 1 Sediment ® Category 5 - 303d ® Category 4C f Category 4B rir.. Category 4A fif Category 2 ® Category 1 Water Quality Standards r, All Standards Miles King County[ WA State Paris GIs. Earl, HERE, Garrra}n, SafeGr®pn, 0 0.5 t 2 GeoTed,r,oWgies. €nC, MEMNASA. €JSGS, Surearr et Ladd MsrERemerrt. EPA, NPS, USDA 10125f23, 2'07 PM Pierce County l WashiNton State Departrnent of Ecology DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Fierce County State of Washington Ecology homepage > Water & Shorelines n Water improvement > Total Maximum Daily load process > Directory of projects a fierce County Water quality improvement projects Select the waterbody or pollutant name to find more information about the specific project. Waterbody Name(s) Pollutant(s) Status Project Lead(s) Dissolved EPA approved and Clarks and Meeker Oxygen Donovan Gray. r eks Sediment Has an implementation 360-407-6407 Dian Fecal Coliform Dissolved Clover Creek Oxygen lender development Donovan Gray Fecal Coliform 360-407-6407 Temperature Comrnencement Bair Dioxin EPA approved Donovan Grave, EPA approved and 360407-6407 Gallup River Donovan Gray, Feral Coliform Watershed Has implementation plan 360-407-6407 Puyallup River j� parameter Donavan Gray Watershed Ammonia-N EPA approved 360-407-6407 - — 8i]D (5-dakl Puyallup River: EPA approved Sediment Donovan Gra+ Upper White River Temperature 360-407-6407 Puyallup River: Gallup River p Under development Donovan Grgy, Watersheds lower 360-407-6407 White River EPA approved and Fecal Coliform EPA Gray South Prairie Creek Temperature Has an implementation 360-407-6407 plan Total Donovan Gray Wapato lake phosphorus EPA approved 360-407-W7 https:t fortress.wa.gov/ecyienharelwofWaterQraW4improvement/TMDUPie r County.htm 112 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICTS - SITE 35 CRITICAL AREAS REPORT APPENDIX E: QUERIED DATABASE FIGURES Auburn School Districts — Site 35 E November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC Ci 3 X E O L F 6 Ira 11 •* T i �T y 40 r Y _ • t I �1 Iry Bra lorra ow — IL • � � ,;ram .�" aY: { � r t` f lF `3 L i U F�hi-,- 6 L V F O D L P H U 7 K H P D S I H D W X U H V D U H D S S U R[ L P D W H D Q G K D Y H Q R W E H 3 L H U F H & R X Q W\ D V V X P H V Q R 0 L D E L 0 L W\ I R U Y Df lD LVb HJ •L R Q V D V F H Wetlands October 26, 2�23 This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the Wetlands base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should Freshwater Emergent Wetland Lake be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Other ❑ Estuarine and Marine Wetland ❑ Freshwater Pond ❑ Riverine National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This page was produced by the NWI mapper 10/30/23. 11:36 AM PHS Report Fsrt„' Priority Habitats and Species on the Web IVILDLIFE r 4 0 -r { .%fdF, 0 I lk _ r'R r ' Report Date: 10/30/2023 PHS Species/Habitats Overview: about:blank 1/5 10/30/23, 11:36 AM PHS Report Occurence Name Federal Status State Status Sensitive Location Waterfowl Concentrations N/A N/A No Wetlands N/A N/A No Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland N/A N/A No Freshwater Pond N/A N/A No about:blank 2/5 10/30/23, 11:36 AM PHS Report Freshwater Emergent Wetland N/A N/A No PHS Species/Habitats Details: Waterfowl Concentrations Priority Area Regular Concentration Site Name PIERCE COUNTY - NON FARM Accuracy 1/4 mile (Quarter Section) Notes SMALL WATERFOWL CONCENTRATION AREAS, NON AGRICULTURAL. Source Record 902564 Source Dataset PHSREGION Source Name NAUER, DON WDW Source Entity WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Federal Status N/A State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS LISTED OCCURRENCE Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED ManagementRecommendations http://wdfw.wa.gov//publications/pub.php?id=00026 Geometry Type Polygons Priority Area Site Name Accuracy Notes Source Record Source Dataset Source Name Source Entity Federal Status State Status PHS Listing Status Sensitive SGCN Display Resolution ManagementRecommendations Geometry Type Aquatic Habitat LAKE TAPPS PLATAU WETLANDS 1/4 mile (Quarter Section) NUMEROUS WETLANDS EITHER SURFACE OR SUBSURFACE CONNECTED TO LAKE TAPPS WHICH PROVIDE QUALITY WILDLIFE HABITAT. 902565 PHSREGION NAUER, DON WDW WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife N/A N/A PHS Listed Occurrence N N AS MAPPED Up-://www.ecy.wa.gov/pLgrams/sea/wetlands/bas/index.htmI Polygons about:blank 3/5 10/30/23, 11:36 AM PHS Report Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Priority Area Aquatic Habitat Site Name N/A Accuracy NA Notes Wetland System: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland - NWI Code: PFO6/7C Source Dataset NWIWetlands Source Name Not Given Source Entity US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Status N/A State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED ManagementRecommendations http://w ww.ecy.wa.ggv/programs/sea/wetlands/bas/index.html Geometry Type Polygons Freshwater Pond Priority Area Aquatic Habitat Site Name N/A Accuracy NA Notes Wetland System: Freshwater Pond - NWI Code: PUSC Source Dataset NWIWetlands Source Name Not Given Source Entity US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Status N/A State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED ManagementRecommendations http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/bas/index.html Geometry Type Polygons about:blank 4/5 10/30/23, 11:36 AM PHS Report Freshwater Emergent Wetland Priority Area Aquatic Habitat Site Name N/A Accuracy NA Notes Wetland System: Freshwater Emergent Wetland - NWI Code: PEM1C Source Dataset NWIWetlands Source Name Not Given Source Entity US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Status N/A State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED ManagementRecommendations http://w ww.ecy.wa.ggv/programs/sea/wetlands/bas/index.html Geometry Type Polygons DISCLAIMER. This report includes information that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) maintains in a central computer database. It is not an attempt to provide you with an official agency response as to the impacts of your project on fish and wildlife. This information only documents the location offish and wildlife resources to the best of our knowledge. It is not a complete inventory and it is important to note that fish and wildlife resources may occur in areas not currently known to WDFW biologists, or in areas for which comprehensive surveys have not been conducted. Site specific surveys are frequently necesssary to rule out the presence of priority resources. Locations of fish and wildlife resources are subject to variation caused by disturbance, changes in season and weather, and other factors. WDFW does not recommend using reports more than six months old. about:blank 5/5 : 1+ 3 5 D U H 3 0 D Q W D Q G ( F ti �i0 -RP 7 LA 7 5 ( 7 5 y( 1 YGM VIL SS 7 . 0 LORQ O 6 FF Q 6( yOOVK 6W LDLQ U H ( GJ HZ RRG } '� + (� C3 + N DN1 7 5 ( 7 5 ( 7 5= 6( yuy 6W 6XP QF J (QXP FODZ XMiu 6 3X\ DaXS °/cRQQM / DN-i N(M Z \ 6XF Y XP P L1ft .puu 1LDLLLH %XFNW ua uuVkC 6V� $ o� � SG � 0 3 5 LGJ H Lj / . 66 vK 6 q 6 RXVkC + LQD Cn 63WUH8,W N ` $ 5 Q R Z Q 5 D U H 3 0 D Q W V �Q3GX E50DLUFH / D Q t L J6KX UT�,XIA �, „, („FIA, VV W H "N P 5 D U H 3 0 D Q W 6 W D W H o /o R X Q G D U(\vuL ,$s$ 1�$ a6�6 L Q J &I 5 D U H D Q G R U + L J N 4 k P6 W D U P L Q FRRXVQ\V-VCVINLPH 6 D I H U D S K 0( 7 1 $ 6$ FY V : 1 + 3 3 0 D Q W ( F R V . 1 2 1 3/$ 1 7 $ 1(& 2 6< 6 7( 0 / 2 & $ 7, 2 1 6 5O/(& 7 . 1 2: 1 2 & & 8 5 5( 1&( / 2 & $ 7, 2 1 6 REVISIONS 0 1-1 0 C, 0 0 O ol 0 1 t) 00 vp ODD 00 CP (90 J o 00 o /0 00 00 0 00 0 0 0 OIG 0 0 000 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 80 -009 m ZONING REQUIREMENTS =H e.u:ffiho uP�woxcsm.�acvawoEo� xosrn�wx SITE PLAN NOTES LEGAL DESCRIPTION Aob NAC—C.ITICT-1 IRL --1 A—IT—Un SITE P Al.3.1 Land Use 1426 35th Street, Suite I SH Q CKEY Environmental Analysis Everett, WA 98201 PLANNING GROUP, Inc. Permitting p. 425.258.9308 Your�lanning artnersince I'�80. Public Policy www.shockeyplanning.com AUBURN MIDDLE SCHOOL NO. 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF 15 PARCELS FOR THE ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT AND REZONE: 0520053055 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 : N 1/2 OF N 5 AC OF NW OF SE OF SW ALSO N 1/2 OF FOLL BEG AT NE COR SW OF SW TH W 132 FT TH S 330 FT TH E 132 FT TH N TO BEG EXC POR CY TO P CO FOR SUMNER EXT R/W ETN W1001634 EASE OF RECORD OUT OF 3-004 SEG S0294 10/6/99MD 0520053014 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 : S 1/2 OF N 5 AC OF NW OF SE OF SW ALSO S 1/2 OF FOLL BEG AT NE COR SW OF SW TH W 132 FT TH S 330 FT TH E 132 FT TH N TO BEG SUBJ TO EASE 113*1Ii11L 1119n! Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 : L 1 OF SURVEY # 1313 LY IN SE OF SW EASE OF RECORD OUT OF 3-005 SEG L-2906 NC EMS Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 : L 2 OF SURVEY # 1313 LY IN SE OF SW ALSO BEG NE COR OF LOT 2 TH N 33 DEG 41 MIN 56 SEC W 195.41 FT TH E 23.50 FT TH S 33 DEG 41 MIN 56 SEC E 184.90 FT TH S 23 DEG 20 MIN 06 SEC E 187.74 FT TH W 21.27 FT TO SE COR OF LOT 2 EASE OF RECORD OUT OF 3-005 SEG L-2906 NC EMS (DCLPJS6-18-80) 0520053036 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 : LOT 3 OF SURVEY # 1313 LY IN SE OF SW EASE OF RECORD OUT OF 3-005 SEG L-2906 NC EMS 0520053006 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 : N 1 AC OF E 2 AC OF S 5 AC OF N 10 AC OF NW OF SE OF SW SUBJ TO EASE 0520053016 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 : S 1 AC OF E 2 AC OF S 5 AC OF N 10 AC OF NW OF SE OF SW SUBJ TO EASE 0520053040 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 : PARCEL "A" DBLR 91-02-14-0148 DESC AS N 1/2 OF SW OF SE OF SW EXC POR DESC AS FOLL BEG SE COR OF N 1/2 OF SW OF SE OF SW TH W 55.37 FT TH N 08 DEG 17 MIN 33 SEC W 87.73 FT TH N 02 DEG 39 MIN 08 SEC E 78.72 FT TH N 87 DEG 48 MIN 19 SEC E 72.08 FT TO E LI SD SUBD TH S 166.16 FT TO SE COR SD SUBD & POB EASE OF REC OUT OF 3-002 SEG C1358MD 1/15/92BO 0520053001 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34: N 1/2 OF NW OF SE OF SE OF SW SUBJ TO EASE [I>L7►1111LYc][1111 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 : PARCEL "B" DBLR 91-02-14-0148 DESC AS POR OF N 1/2 OF SW OF SE OF SW DESC AS FOLL BEG SE COR OF N 1/2 OF SW OF SE OF SW TH W 55.37 FT TH N 08 DEG 17 MIN 33 SEC W 87.73 FT TH N 02 DEG 39 MIN 08 SEC E 78.72 FT TH N 87 DEG 48 MIN 19 SEC E 72.08 FT TO E LI SD SUBD TH CON E ALG N LI OF S 1/2 OF NW OF SE OF SE OF SW 322.61 FT TO E LI SD SUBD TH S 02 DEG 48 MIN 42 SEC W 99.14 FT TO NWLY BDRY OF POR CYD TO EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO TH S 47 DEG 08 MIN 50 SEC W 101.83 FT TO S LI SD SUBD TH W 250.75 FT TO TRUE POB EASE OF REC OUT OF 3-012 & 3-002 SEG C1358MD 1/15/92BO 0520053015 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34: S 1/2 OF FOLL DESC PROP W 1/2 OF SE OF SW EXC N 10 AC EXC RD EASE & RESERV OF RECORD 0520053013 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 : SW OF SE OF SE OF SW EXC RDS SUBJ TO PRI RD & SUBJ TO R/W & EASE TO PAC NW PIPE CORP # 2392332 LESS THAT POR ACQUIRED BY EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO #2412443 0520053060 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 W 1/2 OF SW OF SE & NE OF SE OF SW & E 1/2 OF SE OF SE OF SW EXC THAT POR LY SLY OF NLY LI OF THAT LD CYD TO EL PASO NATURAL GAS COMP PER AFN 2412443 ALSO EXC E 330 FT OF N 405 FT OF S 1065 FT OF S 1/2 OF SEC LY W OF BONNEVILLE POWER ADMIN R/W PER AFN 1274447 ALSO EXC THAT POR LY NLY OF SLY R/W MAR OF SUMNER-TAPPS HWY E EXT CYD TO P CO PER ETN 1001634 APPROVED SUBD BY CY OF AUBURN PLANNING & BULDG COMM 04/04/07 OUT OF 4-074 SEG 2008-0017 07/05/07CL 0520053046 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 : BEG AT NW COR OF E 330 FT OF THAT POR OF N 330 FT OF S 990 FT OF S 1/2 OF SEC LY W OF BONNEVILLE POWER ADMIN R/W PER AFN 1274447 TH SLY ALG W LI SD POR 330 FT TO SW COR THEREOF TH ELY ALG S LI SD POR 150 FT TH NWLY ALG STRAIGHT LI TO POB LESS ANY POR LY IN EL PASO NAT GAS CO PIPELINE R/W OUT OF 3-030 SEG I-0774 JU 5/13/97JU 0520054081 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 43 W 1/2 OF SW OF SE & E 1/2 OF SE OF SE OF SW EXC THAT POR LY NLY OF SLY LI OF THAT LD CYD TO EL PASO NATURAL GAS COMP PER AFN 2412443 ALSO EXC THAT POR CYD TO P CO LY ELY OF WLY R/W MAR OF SUMNER-TAPPS HWY E EXT PER ETN 1001634 ALSO EXC THAT POR CYD TO P CO FOR ADDL R/W PER ETN 4021323 APPROVED SUBD BY CY OF AUBURN PLANNING & BULDG COMM 04/04/07 OUT OF 4-074 SEG 2008-0017 07/05/07CL Auburn Middle School No. 5 © SHOCKER Legal Descriptions Page -2 Dinah Reed From: Lauren Balisky <BaliskyL@bonneylake.gov> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 4:26 PM To: Dinah Reed Cc: Jason Sullivan; Jim Miracle; Ken Gill Subject: RE: NOH/DNS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT AND REZONE CAUT IOr i The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Good afternoon Dinah, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment and Rezone for new Middle School No. 5 proposed by Auburn School District south of the intersection of Lake Tapps Parkway SE and Sumner Tapps Highway East in the City of Auburn. The PUD, Comprehensive Plan, and Zoning Amendment is interdependent with the construction of the proposed school and ancillary facilities (WAC 1.97-_1__1__-060.), and environmental review should not be split between Lead agencies (WAC__1.97-11-926). Additionally, review of the impacts of the construction of the new school should not be deferred to a future date when the proposal's environmental impacts can reasonably be fully identified at this stage. The City may wish to review a recent unpublished Washington State Court of Appeals decision, Clark Countyv. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board et. at. (Case No. 86622_2nl Division One). For the purpose of the SEPA Checklist and this threshold determination, the City is required to review not just the environmental impacts of the changes in these designations, but also the future school and the impacts to the adjacent major utility facilities, including impacts to the City of Bonney Lake water system and access to the reservoir site. As an agency with jurisdiction, the City respectfully requests reconsideration of the DNS and requests to be a party of record for this application and all related applications moving forward. Sincerely, Lauren Balisky, AICP, MPA I Development Services Manager City of Bonney Lake I Public Services Center 21719 96fh Street E I Floor 2 1 Buckley, WA 98321 Direct: (253) 447-4347 1 BaliskyL@bonneylake.gov Permit Center 1 (253) 447-4356 1 Inspections: (253) 447-4357 Hours: M - Th, 9 AM - 4 PM I F, By Appointment Only I Closed Holidays Disclaimer: The Development Services Division tries to provide timely and informative responses to all email inquiries, but our responses should not be considered comprehensive or applicable to all situations. Information provided by our staff does not constitute a formal statement of restrictions, Dinah Reed From: Katie Posler <kposler@shockeyplanning.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2025 8:44 AM To: hanson.eric29@gmail.com Cc: Dinah Reed; Grose, Jeff, Camie Anderson; Nolan, Matthew (Matt) Subject: RE: question regarding project: Major PUD Amendment PLT-2250005 and SEP25-0010 CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Hi Eric, Thank you for your comments and for reviewing the SEPA Checklist. You are correct that trees will be removed for the proposed middle school development. A significant number of trees will remain along the west, south, and eastern borders of the property. In addition, new trees will be planted to meet code requirements. The proposed landscape plan exceeds the minimum 15% landscape coverage required in the P-1 zone, providing approximately 60% coverage. Portions of the proposed development will occur in areas of the site that are already disturbed, which helps avoid additional land disturbance beyond what is necessary. These tree plantings, retained buffers, and siting strategies are part of the project's mitigation measures to minimize and offset potential impacts to vegetation and wildlife habitat. Please let us know if you have any other questions. Kind regards, Katie Posler Senior Planner Shockey Planning Group 1426 351h Street, Suite 1 Everett, Washington 98201 Phone: 206-480-8245 PrISHOC Celebrating over 45 Years of Excellence 1980-2025! This message is intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended addressee, nor authorized to receive for the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you may not use, copy, disclose or distribute to anyone, the contents contained in the message. From: Eric Hanson <hanson.eric29@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2025 4:07 PM To: Dinah Reed <DReed@auburnwa.gov> Subject: Re: question regarding project: Major PUD Amendment PLT-2250005 and SEP25-0010 CAUTION The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Greetings Ms. Reed, Thank you for your reply to my original email message. I am aware that a certain area of tree cover exists on the west and also the south end of the property to be developed, extending both within and outside the land parcels to be incorporated into the space designated for the prospective middle school. Based on diagrams displayed in the PUD Amendment's SEPA Checklist, I expect that some portion of these wooded sectors must be cleared to enable the full apportionment of the land appointed for the school to be utilized. Mayyou kindly confirm whether this is indeed the case? If so, wildlife which relies on those arboreal zones for habitat shall invariably perish when the native flora is removed and replaced with concrete, cement, and other building materials. I understand that none of these species are likely endangered or listed as particularly threatened in terms of population sizes; nevertheless, I maintain that their demise should be mitigated as much as possible (no matter how much time and effort that entails) and, ideally, prevented altogether. Conceiving of and implementing a method to preserve or at least entirely replace elsewhere the vegetation itself should also be a focus at some point in the planning and/or undergoing of this construction operation. I would therefore kindly like to know what related ecological preservation measures (if any) have been proposed at anytime in the past and through the present moment. Thank you again for your attention and consideration. Regards, Eric Hanson On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 10:11 AM Dinah Reed <DReed auburnwa.gov> wrote: Good morning Eric, The SEPA checklist associated with the PUD Amendment only addresses the PUD Amendment. There will be another SEPA Checklist associated with the development of the property. Any environmental functions to be addressed will be mitigated during that process. The City has thorough regulations addressing wetlands. Buffers are required depending on the significance of the wetland. I will add your name as a Party of Record so that you receive all noticing for the project in the future. Best regards, Dinah Reed Dinah Reed, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Auburn I www.auburnwa.gov Office 253-931-3092 1 DReedPauburnwa.gov Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56. Planning or Land Use Questions? Book an online meeting: Virtual Permit Center - City of Auburn (auburnwa.gov) TEAM AUBURI4 ,A& From: Eric Hanson <hanson.eric29@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 4:50 PM To: Dinah Reed <DReed@auburnwa.gov> Subject: question regarding project: Major PUD Amendment PLT-2250005 and SEP25-0010 CAUTION The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments i1 Good afternoon/evening Ms. Reed, As a member of the general community surrounding the site of the proposed Auburn School District middle school associated with Major PUD Amendment PLT-2250005 and SEP25-0010, 1 have a couple of questions about the project. I understand that the public comment period has now concluded, but, considering that I reside in a household which is partly responsible for funding the building of the school and all related tasks to be completed and which will also be impacted by the logistical and environmental effects of the institution's operations, I maintain that receiving answers to my queries here continues to be warranted. I have read through most of the SEPA Environmental Checklist applicable to this enterprise, and my inquiries are based on statements presented in that document. First, what precisely is planned to happen to the area of the property to be utilized for the middle school known as "Wetland A"? In other words, how exactly will this natural feature be changed from its current condition and situation once the proposed structure is fully assembled as well as during its construction? Second, are there any plans to mitigate the (probable or definitive) destruction of or substantial ecological damage to the habitat relied upon by the "small waterfowl" species that can be intermittently found in or near Wetland A according to the aforementioned Environmental Checklist? If so, what are the details of this prospective mitigation effort? I may wish to engage further at a later period about this major PUD undertaking, but the above questions being addressed can satisfy my initial objectives. You may also redirect this message to other Auburn municipality personnel (or, supplementally or alternately, inform me who those people are and how I can contact them myself) if that/those individual(s) might be more knowledgeable of the topics about which I am asking. I am also readilywilling to answer any necessary or important questions you may now have for me. Thank you for your time and consideration; I look forward to receiving return correspondence soon. Regards, Mr. Eric Hanson hanson.eric29@gmail.com (primary contact method) 206.671.9390 (mobile/message) The information contained in this electronic communication is personal, privileged and/or confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it has been addressed. If you read this communication and are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication, other than delivery to the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail. Thank you. The information contained in this electronic communication is personal, privileged and/or confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it has been addressed. If you read this communication and are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication, other than delivery to the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail. Thank you. Exhibit C P/T No. 1 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT ENGAGE • EDUCATE • EMPOWER Auburn School District No,, 408 Capital FrA- "Rowelities Plan 2025 through 2031 Terminal Park Elementary School — 2023 Adopted by the Auburn School District Board of Directors on June 9, 2025 2025 Capital Facilities Plan U R IV SCHOOL DISTRICT ENGAGE • EDUCATE • EMPOWER 915 Fourth Street SE Auburn, Washington 98002 (253) 931-4900 Board of Directors Laura Theimer - President Tracy Arnold Valerie Gonzales Arlista Holman Sheilia McLaughlin Dr. Alan Spicciati, Superintendent TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 — Executive Summary SECTION 2 — Facility Inventory SECTION 3 — Enrollment Projections SECTION 4 — Student Generation Rates SECTION 5 — Standard of Service SECTION 6 — Capacity and Facility Planning SECTION 7 — Impact Fees SECTION 8 — Conclusions Page 2 Page 3 Page 7 Page 9 Page 11 Page 14 Page 16 Page 20 Auburn School District No. 408 2025 Capital Facilities Plan SECTION 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Auburn School District (District) prepared this six -year Capital Facilities Plan (Plan) in compliance with the requirements of Washington's Growth Management Act and the ordinances adopted by the counties and cities served by the District. The District reviews and amends the Plan annually. All changes are made pursuant to the Growth Management Act and the local ordinances. The Plan was prepared using data available in the spring of 2025 unless otherwise noted. The Plan is consistent with prior long-term capital facilities plans adopted by the District. This Plan is not intended to be the sole plan for all the District's needs. The District may prepare interim and periodic long-range Capital Facilities Plans. The Plan will be submitted to jurisdictions located within the District's service area along with a request to include the plan as an element in the jurisdictions' Comprehensive Plans. King County, and the Cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific must adopt this Plan to enable the District to collect impact fees within their jurisdiction. In the past, the Cities of Algona and Pacific did not adopt a school impact fee ordinance or the District's Capital Facilities Plans. King County Code 21A allows school districts to assess impact fees on every dwelling unit in the District for which a fee schedule has been established. This Plan provides the data and calculations required by King County and the Cities to establish the District's school impact fees for 2025. The District's 2025 impact fee for Single -Family Residences is $8,003. The 2025 impact fee for Multi -Family Residences is $8,966. This multi -family impact fee includes a discretionary adjustment to the fee generated from the King County formula. The adjustment by the District reduces the fee to match the multi -family fee collected by the District in 2024. This reduction was made to establish a more stable impact fee for students generated from multi -family developments. The Plan establishes the District's Standard of Service to determine the District's current and future capacity. While the State Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for school capacity, those guidelines do not account for the local program needs of the District. The Growth Management Act and the school impact fee ordinance authorize the District to define its standard of service based on the District's specific needs. The District's Standard of Service is based upon the District's current student -teacher ratio and service models tailored for specific program needs. The Standard of Service and Auburn School District No. 408 2025 Capital Facilities Plan District's school inventory has been used to calculate the capacity of schools in the District. The District's permanent capacity for the 2025-26 school year is 14,550 students. The number of students enrolled in the District as of March 1, 2025, is 17,766 students. The following table summarizes changes that are incorporated in the District's 2025-2031 Capital Facilities Plan: Table 1: 2025 Capital Facilities Plan Changes ITEM 2024CFP 2025CFP SOURCE Debt Service Tax Rate 1.93178 1.78915 Per King County District Average Assessed Value - SFR $530,816 $602,881 Per King County District Average Assessed Value - MFR $232,969 $228,511 Per King County District Student Capacity- Permanent 14,595 14,550 Updated calculation District Student Capacity - Permanent+Portables 17,541 17,496 Updated calculation District Impact Fee -SFR $4,584 $8,003 Updated calculation District Impact Fee- MFR $8,966 $8,966 Updated calculation with discretionary adjustment Facility Cost - Middle School $143,300,000 $182,000,000 Construction cost refinement and escalation Facility Cost - Portable Classroom $388,165 $250,000 Based on current portable classroom cost Gent. Obligation Bonds Interest Rate 3.48% 4.15% Per Bond Buyer Index OSPI Match %- District 33.14% 33.22% Per OSPI OSPI Match %- State 66.86% 66.78% Per OSPI Site Cost per Acre $508,512 $5339937 District Data Student Generation Rate - Elementary - SFR 0.269 0.331 Updated housing inventory Student Generation Rate - Middle School- SFR 0.107 0.118 Updated housing inventory Student Generation Rate - High School- SFR 0.117 0.161 Updated housing inventory Student Generation Rate - Elementary -MFR 0.482 0.431 Updated housing inventory Student Generation Rate -Middle School- MFR 0.131 0.154 1 Updated housing inventory Student Generation Rate - High School- MFR 0.146 0.152 1 Updated housing inventory SECTION 2 -FACILITY INVENTORY Auburn School District encompasses 62 square miles in King and Pierce Counties and serves the cities of Auburn, Algona, Pacific, as well as a portion of Unincorporated King County. The District owns 661 acres of property, operates 30 facilities, and utilizes 112 portable classrooms. The 30 facilities include 16 elementary schools, four middle schools, four high schools, and six support facilities. 108 portable classrooms are located at schools to accommodate growth and four are located at the District's Administration Building and used for conferences, training, and office space. The following map shows the District's boundaries, school locations, major roads, and the Urban Growth Boundary. Auburn School District No. 408 4 ,► 5 I. MW �' � •ALlbum Mountamview FIS" _ , � AIM Arthur Jacobsen ES Hazelwood ES 4Nillov, Crest ES hv� cade MS e Rain4er MS - f. ck Scobee ES Lea HIII ES �Lake View 'ES .Administration Buildfiig _ m HS m' s or ES �y Chinook ES ' 1 t-Gild' Rey ES ;.w Mt Baker MS Aipac ES � Auburn RI r Palko ES - t�t� •" wPnan"r 'CeekE� 4 . �"'• �A! •� �� . t, P{ ti a nd:FPrls S Ilk � ..� ���.-��1,� y �1��P �ii{�•i SG L� �uf'�`'ll��'.-L'13iC�[gi�l%a 2025 Capital Facilities Plan The following table identifies the District's school facilities and facility data. Table 2: School Facility Inventory SITE YEAR MAJOR SIZE GROSS FACILT BUILT I MOD. (ACRES) SF ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Alpa 310 Milwaukee Blvd N, Pacific 1972 1987 10.68 48,042 46,592 Arthur Jacobsen 29205132nd Ave SE, Auburn 2007 NA 10.02 56,620 56,283 Bowman Creek 5701 Kersey Way SE, Auburn 2020 NA 21.85 75,862 74,413 Chinook 3502 Auburn Way S, Auburn 2022 NA 13.07 75,896 74,496 Dick Scobee 1031 14th St NE, Auburn 2020 NA 8.90 765371 74,961 Evergreen Heights 5602 S 316th St, Auburn 1970 201412017 10.10 44,231 41,923 Gildo Rey 1005 37th St SE, Auburn 1969 198812012 10.05 49,123 47,697 Hazelwood 11815 SE 304th St, Auburn 1990 NA 13.08 54,906 53,482 Ilalko 301 Oravetz Place SE, Auburn 1992 NA 14.22 54,734 53,310 Lake View 16401 SE 318th St, Auburn 1980 NA 16.48 54,054 52,252 Lakeland Hills 1020 Evergreen Way SE, Auburn 2006 NA 12.00 54,876 53,454 Lea Hill 30908124th Ave SE, Auburn 2022 NA 20.24 75,896 74,384 Pioneer 2301 M St SE, Auburn 2021 NA 11.13 76,758 75,358 Terminal Park 1101 D St SE, Auburn 2023 NA 6.09 77,443 75,793 Washington 20 E St NE, Auburn 1972 1988 5.33 46,378 46,377 Willow Crest 13002 SE 304th St, Auburn 2021 NA 1 10.43 75,849 74,405 TOTAL MIDNW Cascade 1015 24th St NE, Auburn 1967 1998 193.67 16.94 997,039 89,320 975,180 89,320 Mt Baker 620 37th St SE, Auburn 1994 NA 28.98 90,365 90,365 Olympic 839 21st St SE, Auburn 2019 NA 17.40 107,625 107,625 Rainier 30620116th Ave SE, Auburn 1991 NA 25.54 91,321 91,321 TOTAL 88.86 378,631 378,631 HIGH SCHOOL Auburn High - Main Building 711 E Main St, Auburn 2015 NA 20.50 277,229 276,229 Auburn High - TAP Building 501 3rd St NE, Auburn 2009 NA 0.24 2,662 2,662 Auburn Mountainview 28900124th Ave SE Auburn 2005 NA 39.42 187,542 187 539 Auburn Riverside 501 Oravetz Rd, Auburn 1995 NA 35.32 180,248 180,248 West Auburn 401 W Main St, Auburn 1990 NA 5.26 30,295 30,295 TOTAL 1 100.74 677,976 676,973 GRAND TOTAL 383.27 2,053,646 2,03 The following table identifies the District's support facilities and facility data. Auburn School District No. 408 5 2025 Capital Facilities Plan Table 3: Support Facility Inventory SITE YEAR MAJOR SIZE GROSS FACILTY ADDRESS BUILT MOD. I ACRES SUPPORT FACILITIES Administration Building 915 4th St NE, Auburn 1968 198712017 3.50 24,046 NA Administration Annex 502 4th St NE, Auburn 1935 1989 0.34 6,557 NA Auburn Memorial Stadium 405 4th St NE, Auburn 1978 198011997 6.60 17,055 NA Auburn Pool 516 4th St NE, Auburn 1971 2011 0.74 14,390 NA Support Services 1302 4th St SW, Auburn 1996 NA 5.50 41,184 NA Transportation Center 61515th St SW, Auburn 1997 NA 1 5.90 1 19,500 NA TOTALS The following table identifies the District's portable classrooms that are located at schools. Table 4: School Portable Classroom Inventory SINGLE DOUBLE TOTAL PORTABLE PORTABLE PORTABLE FACILITY CLASSROOMS CLASSROOMS CLASSROOMS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AI ac 6 0 6 Arthur Jacobsen 0 0 0 Bowman Creek 0 0 0 Chinook 0 0 0 Dick Scobee 0 0 0 Evergreen Heights 4 0 4 Gildo Rey 1 0 1 Hazelwood 2 0 2 Ilalko 0 0 0 Lake View 0 0 0 Lakeland Hills 1 1 3 Lea Hill 0 0 0 Pioneer 0 0 0 Terminal Park 0 0 0 Washington 10 0 10 Willow Crest 0 0 0 TOTAL 24 1 26 MIDDLE SCHOOLS If qF Cascade 8 0 8 Mt. Baker 8 3 14 Olympic 8 0 8 Rainier 9 1 11 TOTAL 33 4 41 HIGH SCHOOLS or Auburn High - Main Building 10 0 10 Auburn High - TAP Building 0 0 0 Auburn Mountainview 10 1 12 Auburn Riverside 6 6 18 West Auburn 1 0 1 TOTAL 27 7 41 GRAND TOTAL 12 Auburn School District No. 408 2025 Capital Facilities Plan The following table identifies the District's inventory of undeveloped property. Table 5: Undeveloped Property Inventory SITE YEAR SITE SIZE NO. LOCATION ACQUIRED (ACRES) URBAN BUILDING DEPT. GROWTH JURISDICTION BOUNDARY 23A SE 318th St., Auburn 1948 62.44 King County Outside 25A SE Lake Holm Road 1190th Ave. SE, Auburn 1990 23.86 King County Outside 25B SE Lake Holm Road 1188th Ave. SE, Auburn 2008 5.00 King County Outside 33 SE Lake Holm Road 1129th Way SE, Auburn 2005 40.00 King County Outside 34139 1 St. NE140th St. NE, Auburn 2002 / 2022 72.28 City of Auburn Within 35 Sumner Tapps Hwy. E.162nd St. SE, Auburn 2009 53.00 City of Auburn Within TOTAL 1 1 256.58 SECTION 3 — ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS The District has contracted with MGT Consulting Group (MGT) to provide a comprehensive and detailed demographic analysis of the school district. This includes updating District mapping files, analyzing the District using geocoded student data files, developing and researching pertinent demographic data, identifying current and future residential development plans, and preparing a ten-year student population forecast. The data collected and used in the ten-year forecast includes: • an analysis of birth rates and their effect on incoming kindergarten classes, • the effects of student mobility including cohort survival rates, • student yield rates based upon historic housing data and trends, and • a detailed review of future residential development within the district. The methodology utilized by MGT is more extensive than traditional cohort survival projections and has proven to be reasonable and effective in predicting the student population in the District. Historical Enrollment The following table shows the District's October 1 historical enrollment over the past 20- years. The data reveals an average overall growth of 1.15% during the past 10 years. This includes a 4.42% decrease in 2020 enrollment due to the COVID pandemic. Auburn School District No. 408 2025 Capital Facilities Plan Table 6: Historical Enrollment GRADE 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 KDG 955 940 995 998 1,032 1,010 1,029 1,098 1,170 1,232 1,198 1,237 1,261 1,271 1,291 1,038 1,227 1,214 1,205 1,225 1 963 1,012 995 1,014 1,033 1,066 1,068 1,089 1,188 1,219 1,279 1,210 1,276 1,290 1,314 1,236 1,135 1,304 1,305 1,232 2 963 1,001 1,019 1,024 998 1,016 1,097 1,083 1,124 1,196 1,289 1,300 1,251 1,311 1,295 1,243 1,249 1,241 1,320 1,338 3 1,002 1,031 997 1,048 993 1,013 996 1,111 1,125 1,136 1,232 1,317 1,328 1,275 1,320 1,243 1,264 1,324 1,265 1,338 4 939 1,049 1,057 1,045 1,073 1,024 1,022 1,038 1,123 1,156 1,170 1,237 1,328 1,378 1,316 1,257 1,255 1,322 1,356 1,314 S 1,065 998 1,077 1,070 1,030 1,079 1,017 1,070 1,075 1,122 1,172 1,199 1,269 1,345 1,361 1,294 1,251 1,296 1,349 1,345 6 1,004 1,061 1,008 1,096 1,040 1,041 1,063 1,041 1,076 1,059 1,116 1,152 1,207 1,275 1,337 1,306 1,233 1,227 1,276 1,314 7 1,028 1,014 1,057 1,034 1,125 1,060 1,032 1,036 1,072 1,091 1,099 1,132 1,194 1,232 1,295 1,319 1,304 1,267 1,230 1,259 8 1,137 1,069 1,033 1,076 1,031 1,112 1,046 1,018 1,116 1,088 1,136 1,108 1,183 1,213 1,236 1,264 1,312 1,315 1,277 1,241 9 1,379 1,372 1,337 1,257 1,245 1,221 1,273 1,200 1,159 1,275 1,229 1,261 1,257 1,372 1,399 1,351 1,386 1,455 1,453 1,367 10 1,383 1,400 1,367 1,341 1,277 1,238 1,168 1,278 1,229 1,169r15,522 1,248 1,300 1,313 1,410 1,376 1,188 1,416 1,507 1,501 11 1,153 1,294 1,305 1,304 1,269 1,212 1,177 1,116 1,187 1,169 1,248 1,188 1,198 1,218 1,174 1,299 1,300 1,309 1,409 12 989 1,068 1,176 1,259 1,319 1,251 1,220 1,231 1,186 1,218 1,104 1,266 1,126 1,113 1,039 1,248 1,251 1,252 1,280 TOTALS 13,960 14,309 14,423 14,566 14,465 14,343 14,208 14,459 14,830 15,130 15,753 16,308 16,599 16,905 16,190 16,601 17,059 17,239 17,312 Student Gain/Loss 349 114 143 -101 -122 -135 251 371 300 392 231 555 291 306 715 411 458 180 73 Percent Gain/Loss 0.79% 0.98% -0.70% -0.85% -0.95% 1.74% 2.50% 1.98% 2.53% 1.47% 3.40% 1.75% 1.81% -4.42% 2.48% 2.68% 1.04% 0.42% Projected Enrollment Based upon a district -wide analysis: • The student population is expected to grow around 6.1 % in the next six years then stabilize during the following four years, with a ten-year growth of 6.9%. • The elementary school grade group represents the largest portion of students and shows consistent growth and stability, with 5.7% growth in the next six years, peaking in school year 2031, then declining slightly at the end of the ten-year forecast. • The middle school grades experience steady growth but have slightly more variability year-to-year. This population is expected to grow by 9.3% in the six -year forecast as larger grade cohorts enter middle school, then slow during the following four years. • High school grades 9-12 show a steady rise beginning in school year 2028 due to smaller cohorts graduating out of the system and being backfilled by large 9th grade cohorts. This grade group is expected to increase by 7.3% in the six -year forecast and 9.9% in the ten-year forecast. Auburn School District No. 408 2025 Capital Facilities Plan The following table identifies October 1 student enrollment projections for the next six years. Table 7: Student Enrollment Projections GRADE 2025-26 2026-27 1 2027.28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 IN -DISTRICT STUDENTS Pre-K 145 145 145 145 145 145 K 1,186 1,234 1,221 1,211 1,232 1,233 1 1,197 1,206 1,266 1,262 1,241 1,253 2 1,212 1,217 1,237 1,307 1,294 1,262 3 1,324 1,241 1,256 1,287 1,350 1,326 4 1,329 1,362 1,286 1,314 1,336 1,390 5 1,287 1,348 1,395 1,328 1,346 1,357 6 1,301 1,278 1,349 1,403 1,329 1,341 7 1,305 1,309 1,291 1,371 1,416 1,333 8 1,261 1,323 1,338 1,327 1,402 1,443 9 1,253 1,286 1,356 1,377 1,360 1,428 10 1,293 1,286 1,326 1,402 1,418 1,394 11 1,298 1,224 1,223 1,269 1,331 1,340 12 1,239 1,254 1,190 1,198 1,234 1,288 Subtotal 16,629 16,711 16,877 17,199 17,432 17,532 OUT -OF -DISTRICT STUDENTS K-5 261 264 266 267 270 271 6-8 48 49 50 51 52 51 9-12 479 476 480 495 504 514 Subtotal 789 789 796 813 826 836 TOTALSTUDENTS PreK-5 7,940 8,016 8,070 8,120 8,213 8,237 6-8 3,915 3,958 4,028 4,153 4,199 4,169 9-12 5,563 5,525 5,574 5,740 5,846 5,963 TOTAL 17,418 17,500 17,672 18,012 18,258 18,369 SECTION 4 - STUDENT GENERATION RATES King County Code 21A establishes a formula to determine school impact fees. Developers of residential properties must pay a school district the impact fee to help compensate the District for the impact of new housing units on school facilities. This King County code was substantially adopted by the Cities of Auburn, Black Diamond, and Kent. This formula requires the District to establish a "Student Generation Rate." This rate is the average number of students generated by a residential housing unit and is used to estimate the number of students that will be added to the District by each new housing unit. Auburn School District No. 408 2025 Capital Facilities Plan Two sets of data are used to calculate Student Generation Rates - current student enrollment and students generated from recently constructed housing units. This information links each student with a housing unit. Two general housing categories are analyzed - single-family and multi -family. The District also uses the Student Generation Rates to estimate student enrollment in the future. Development data is collected to determine the number of new residential units that may be built in the future. The Student Generation Rates are applied to estimate the number of new students that the planned residential developments may yield. Planned residential development data has been provided by MGT with additional data obtained by the District from city agencies, counties, and major developers within the District boundaries. Student population by residence includes all approved and tentative tract maps in addition to any planned or proposed development that may occur within the project timeframe. The planned residential development information is a current snapshot of the District. The information may change and is updated annually. The following table provides information about recent single-family residential developments in the District and associated Student Generation Rates. Table 8: Single -Family Residential Development Summary SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS FULL OCCUPANCY DATE UNITS OCCUPIED UNITS TO BE OCCUPIED 2024 STUDENTS STUDENT GENERATION RATES K-5 6-8 9-12 Total K-5 6-8 9-12 Total Bridges 2021 380 380 0 128 44 58 230 0.337 0.116 0.153 0.605 Forest Glen 2021 30 30 0 17 8 11 36 0.567 0.267 0.367 1.200 Greenvale 2023 17 17 0 2 0 1 0 0.118 0.000 0.059 0.176 Greenview Estates 2023 17 17 0 2 2 4 8 0.118 0.118 0.235 0.471 Hastings 2020 10 10 0 5 1 1 7 0.500 0.100 0.100 0.700 Lozier Ranch Pending 18 7 11 0 2 0 2 0.000 0.286 0.000 0.286 Palisades - Omni Homes Pending 16 15 1 5 1 4 10 0.333 0.067 0.267 0.667 River Rock Pending 14 7 7 2 0 0 1 2 0.286 1 0.000 0.000 0.286 Vasiliy 2021 8 8 0 2 0 0 2 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.250 Willow Place 1 2021 11 11 0 3 1 2 6 0.273 0.091 2 0.545 TOTALS 521 502 19 166 59 81 306 0.331 0.1181 nO. 0.610 The following table provides information about recent multi -family residential developments in the District and associated Student Generation Rates. Table 9: Multi -Family Residential Development Summary MULTI -FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS FULL OCCUPANCY DATE UNITS OCCUPIED UNITS TO BE OCCUPIED 2024 STUDENTS STUDENT GENERATION RATES K-5 6-8 9-12 Total K-5 6-8 9-12 Total Copper Gate Apts. 2021 500 500 0 351 124 122 597 0.702 0.248 0.244 1.194 Divine Court Apts. 2024 98 98 0 1 0 0 0 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.010 The Verge Auburn 2022 226 226 0 3 3 3 9 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.040 TOTALS 1 0 1 726 1 726 1 0 1 350 1 95 1 106 1 551 1 0.431 1 0.154 1 0.152 1 0.737 Auburn School District No. 408 10 2025 Capital Facilities Plan SECTION 5 - STANDARD OF SERVICE The School Impact Fee Ordinances adopted by King County and the Cities of Auburn, Black Diamond, and Kent require the District to establish a "Standard of Service" to be eligible to impose school impact fees. The Standard of Service must identify the school program year, class size by grade span, the types of facilities needed to serve its student population, and other rates identified by the District including the requirements of students with special needs. CURRENT ENROLLMENT The District operates 16 elementary schools with pre-school to grade 5, four middle schools with grades 6 to 8, three comprehensive and one alternate education high school with grades 9 to 12. Student enrollments at these schools as of March 2025 are: • Elementary Schools: 8,524 students • Middle Schools: 3,778 students • High Schools: 5,464 students • Total Enrollment: 17,766 students CLASS SIZE Standard class sizes in the District are subject to state regulations, collective bargaining agreements, and student needs. Class sizes also vary based upon grade level and classroom type. The District's blended class size standards are as follows: • Elementary Schools: 20.29 students per classroom • Middle Schools: 28.02 students per classroom • High Schools: 28.74 students per classroom • Self -Contained Special Education: 12.00 students per classroom PERMANENT CLASSROOMS Permanent classrooms are located at schools owned and operated by the District. The school district does not lease classroom space. The number of permanent classrooms at the District's 24 schools are: • Elementary Schools: 507 classrooms • Middle Schools: 151 classrooms Auburn School District No. 408 11 2025 Capital Facilities Plan • High Schools: 221 classrooms • Total: 879 classrooms PORTABLE CLASSROOMS Portable classrooms in the District are modular structures that can be relocated. The District uses portable classrooms when permanent facilities do not have adequate space to accommodate its students and staff. Portable classrooms are also used at the school district's Administration Building for training, conference, and office space. The number of portable classrooms in use and their locations are: • Elementary Schools: 26 portables • Middle Schools: 41 portables • High Schools: 41 portables • Support Facilities: 4 portables • Total: 112 portables TYPES OF CLASSROOMS The types of classrooms in the District vary based upon grade level, instructional program, and student needs. Classroom types in the District are: • General Classrooms: Spaces used for general instruction and do not have specialized features or equipment. These classrooms are present in elementary, middle, and high schools. • Special Education Self -Contained Classrooms: Spaces used for self-contained instruction for students with special needs. These classrooms are present in elementary, middle, and high schools. • Specialty Classrooms: Instructional spaces that have unique features or equipment. These classrooms are present in middle and high schools and consist of teaching stations for art, automotive technology, band, business education, career center, choral, construction manufacturing, computer science, culinary arts, drafting, drama, fitness and conditioning, horticulture, kitchen science, marketing, metals, orchestra, physical education, robotics, science, sports medicine, theater arts, and visual communications. • Pull -Out Classrooms: Spaces where students receive specialized instruction for a portion of the school day and are comprised of elementary gymnasiums and music, and elementary, middle, and high school multi-lingual, resource, and Title/LAP classrooms. Pull-out classrooms do not contribute to a school's capacity because students visit these classrooms during the school day while excused from their general classrooms. Auburn School District No. 408 12 2025 Capital Facilities Plan The standard number of students in a classroom varies based upon grade level and classroom type. Standard class sizes in the District are: • Elementary General Classroom Pre -Kindergarten: 20 students per classroom. • Elementary General Classrooms Kindergarten through Grade 3: 17 students per classroom. • Elementary General Classrooms Grades 4 and 5: 27 students per classroom. • Middle School General and Specialty Classrooms Grade 6: 27 students per classroom. • Middle School General and Specialty Classrooms Grades 7 and 8: 28.53 students per classroom. • High School General and Specialty Classrooms Grades 9 through 12: 28.74 students per classroom. • Special Education Self -Contained Classrooms Pre -Kindergarten — Grade 12: 12 students per classroom. • Pull -Out Classrooms Pre -Kindergarten through Grade 12: Class size varies depending on the grade level and type of instruction being provided. CLASSROOM UTILIZATION As noted above, the District has established standard student class sizes based upon grade level and classroom use. While the District works diligently to assign students to achieve full classroom capacity, it is not possible to always do so. Consequently, the District applies classroom utilization rates to address inefficiencies in assigning classes. The utilization rates are: • Elementary Schools: 100% utilization based on the ability to fully assign classes at classroom size standards. • Middle and High Schools: 76.67% utilization based upon 92% utilization due to elective class sizes x 83% utilization due to classrooms used for planning periods. SCHOOL CAPACITY School capacity is determined by the number of teaching stations present at each school, type of teaching station, class size, teaching station capacity, and classroom utilization rate. The following table identifies the capacity of each school in the District including permanent classrooms and portable classrooms. Auburn School District No. 408 13 2025 Capital Facilities Plan Table 10 - School Capacities SCHOOLNAME GEN. CLRMS. PRE-K CLRMS. SPEC. ED. SELF- CONTAINED CLRMS. PULL- OUT CLRMS. SPECIALTY CLRMS. TOTL CLRMS. GEN. & SPECIALTY CLRM. CAPACITY SPEC. ED. SELF- CONTAINED CLRM. CAPACITY CLRM. UTILIZATION RATE SCHOOL CAPACITY PERMANENT SCHOOL CAPACITY PERMANENT+ PORTABLES ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AI ac 18 2 0 6 0 26 20.29 12.00 100.00% 406 556 Arthur Jacobsen 21 1 1 5 0 28 20.29 12.00 100.00% 458 458 Bowman Creek 32 1 1 5 0 39 20.29 12.00 100.00% 682 682 Chinook 26 4 2 7 0 39 20.29 12.00 100.00% 633 633 Dick Scobee 25 4 2 8 0 39 20.29 12.00 100.00% 612 612 Evergreen Heights 16 1 1 4 0 22 20.29 12.00 100.00% 357 457 Gildo Rey 17 3 1 4 0 25 20.29 12.00 100.00% 418 443 Hazelwood 21 1 1 5 0 28 20.29 12.00 100.00% 458 508 Ilalko 20 1 2 5 0 28 20.29 12.00 100.00% 450 450 Lake View 18 1 1 5 0 25 20.29 12.00 100.00% 398 398 Lakeland Hills 21 1 1 1 5 0 28 20.29 12.00 100.00% 458 533 Lea Hill 27 3 3 6 0 39 20.29 12.00 100.00% 645 645 Pioneer 26 4 2 7 0 39 20.29 12.00 100.00% 633 633 Terminal Park 28 4 1 6 0 39 20.29 12.00 100.00% 661 661 Washington 12 3 2 7 0 24 20.29 12.00 100.00% 328 578 Willow Crest 29 3 1 6 0 39 1 20.29 12.00 100.00% 661 661 TOTALS 357 37 22 91 0 507 8,258 8,908 MIDDLE SCHOOLS Cascade 14 0 1 8 17 40 28.02 12.00 76.67% 675 899 Mt Baker 13 0 1 7 15 36 28.02 12.00 76.67% 611 1,003 Olympic 12 0 2 9 17 40 28.02 12.00 76.67% 641 865 Rainier 9 0 3 8 15 35 28.02 12.00 76.67% 543 851 TOTALS 48 0 7 32 64 151 2,470 3,618 HIGH SCHOOLS Auburn High 23 0 3 15 40 81 28.74 12.00 76.67% 1,416 1,696 Auburn High - TAP 1 0 2 0 0 3 28.74 12.00 76.67% 40 40 Auburn Mountainview 17 0 4 11 30 62 28.74 12.00 76.67% 1,072 1,408 Auburn Riverside 23 0 0 10 29 62 28.74 12.00 76.67% 1,146 1,650 West Auburn 4 0 4 F-41 1 1 13 1 28.74 12.00 76.67% 147 175 TOTALS 68 0 13 40 100 221 3,821 4,969 GRAND TOTALS 473 37 42 163 164 879 14,550 17,496 SECTION 6 - CAPACITY AND FACILITY PLANNING Since 1975, the District has regularly performed in-depth reviews of its existing facilities and long-term facility needs. The process includes the formation of community -wide citizens' committees to review facility needs and make recommendations for improvements, modernizations, and new facilities. In 2015, a citizens' committee recommended the District build two new elementary schools, replace one middle and five elementary schools, and acquire property for three Auburn School District No. 408 14 2025 Capital Facilities Plan elementary schools. In November 2016, the voters approved a bond proposition to build and replace these schools. The last project in this building program was completed in October 2024. In 2023, the District completed a 10-year Facilities Master Plan. This plan identified the following facility needs: • Complete improvements to 22 facilities to address aging equipment, air conditioning, energy conservation, major maintenance, and safety and security improvements within six years. • Replace Alpac Elementary School within six years. • Replace Cascade Middle School within six years. • Build a new middle school within six years. • Replace Evergreen Heights and Gildo Rey Elementary Schools within seven to 13 years. • Replace the Administration Building and Administration Annex within seven to 13 years. • Build a new high school in nine years if current enrollment projections remain accurate. • Acquire new portable classrooms and relocate existing portable classrooms where needed to accommodate localized enrollment growth at individual schools. A citizens' committee was convened in the fall of 2023 and recommended construction of a new middle school to increase capacity, replace an aging elementary and middle school, and provide improvements at 22 existing schools and support facilities. Based upon these recommendations, the District Board of Directors placed a bond proposition on the November 2024 ballot for these projects. This proposition received a 55.05% approval, missing the required 60% approval rate. Here is a record of construction bonds submitted to the voters during the past 10 years. This includes the funding measures identified above. The school district has not submitted a capital levy to the voters for construction purposes during the past 10 years. Auburn School District No. 408 15 2025 Capital Facilities Plan Table 11 — Construction Bond and Capital Levy — 10 Year History FUNDING MEASURE Construction Bond PROJECTS New Middle School #5, Cascade MS Replacement, Alpac Elem. FUNDING ELECTION ELECTION AMOUNT DATE RESULT $532,100,000 Nov.2024 I Failed 2 New Elementary Schools, Replace 5 Elementary Schools and 1 Middle Construction Bond I School $456,056,000 Nov. 2016 Passed The District Board of Directors is considering submitting a bond proposition to the voters in November 2025 to build a new Middle School #5 and replace Alpac Elementary and Cascade Middle School. It is also considering submitting a capital levy proposition in November 2025 to provide improvements to 22 existing facilities. The District is not eligible for state funding assistance for the Middle School #5 project. The District is eligible for state funding assistance for the replacement of Alpac Elementary and Cascade Middle School. The District will front fund the Alpac Elementary and Cascade Middle School projects because the state funding assistance is not guaranteed for these projects. The new middle school and portable classrooms are part of the District's capacity solution. The new middle school will provide added capacity to serve growth and is the basis for the District's impact fees. The District also plans to purchase or relocate portable classrooms to continue to accommodate growth at the middle and high school levels. The District's six -year facility needs are summarized in the following table. Table 12 : Six -Year Capital Construction Plan SIX -YEAR FINANCE PLAN ADDED FUND ESTIMATED ESTIMATED PROJECT CAPACITY SOURCE COMPLETION COST 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Total Future New Middle School 800 Bond Au .2027 $182,000,000 $7,280,000 $74,620,000 $91,000,000 $7,280,000 $1,820,000 $0 $182,000,000 Cascade MS Future Replacement 125 Bond Au .2028 $190,000,000 $2,850,000 $4,750,000 $77,900,000 $95,000,000 $7,600,000 $1,900,000 $190,000,000 Alpac Elem. Future Replacement 224 Bond Au .2029 $118,000,000 $0 $1,770,000 $2,950,000 $48,380,000 $59,000,000 $5,900,000 $118,000,000 Improvements at 22 Future Facilities 0 Cap.Levy Au .2029 $53,400,000 $0 $8,010,000 $16,020,000 $13,350,000 $13,350,000 $2,670,000 $53,400,000 Cap. Proj. Portable Classrooms 0 Fund Au .2025 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,250,000 Cap. Proj. Property Acquisitions 0 Fund NA $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTALS 1 $544,650,000 $11,380,000 $89,150,000 $187,870,000 $164,010,000 $81,770,000 $10,470,000 $544,650,000 SECTION 7 - IMPACT FEES King County Code 21A allows school districts to assess impact fees on every dwelling unit in the District for which a fee schedule has been established. The fee schedule is based on the school impact fee formula set out in King County Ordinance 11621 Attachment A. Auburn School District No. 408 16 2025 Capital Facilities Plan The following table identifies the data used in calculating impact fees for 2025. Table 13: Impact Fee Data IMPACT FEE ELEMENTS SOURCE SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY Elementary Middle School High School Elementary Middle School High School Classroom Capacities District Standards 20.29 28.02 28.74 20.29 28.02 28.74 Debt Service Tax Rate King County 1.78915 1.78915 1.78915 1.78915 1.78915 1.78915 District Average Assessed Value King County $602,781 $602,781 $602,781 $228,511 $228,511 $228,511 District SF Capacity- Permanent District Data 997,039 378,631 677,976 997,039 378,631 677,976 District SF Capacity - Portables District Data 23,200 36,160 36,640 23,200 36,160 36,640 District SF Capacity - Permanent+ Portables District Data 1,020,239 414,791 714,616 1,020,239 414,791 714,616 District Student Capacity - Permanent District Data 8,258 2,470 3,821 8,258 2,470 3,821 District Student Capacity - Permanent+ Portables District Data 8,908 3,618 4,969 8,908 3,618 4,969 District Impact Fees CFP Calculation $8,003 $8,003 $8,003 $8,966 $8,966 $8,966 Facility Cost - Middle School District Data $0 $182,000,000 $0 $0 $182,000,000 $0 Facility Cost - Portable Classroom District Data $250,000 $250,000 $0 $250,000 $250,000 $0 Facility SF %- PermanentFacilities District Data 97.73% 91.28% 94.87% 97.73% 91.28% 94.87/ Facility SF % - Portable Facilities District Data 2.27 % 8.72 % 5.13 % 2.27 % 8.72 % 5.13 % Genl. Obligation Bonds Interest Rate Bond Buyer Index 4.15% 4.15% 4.15% 4.15% 4.15% 4.15% OSPI Construction Cost Allowance OSPI $375.00 $375.00 $375.00 $375.00 $375.00 $375.00 OSPI Match %- District OSPI 33.22% 33.22% 33.22% 33.22% 33.22% 33.22% OSPI Match % - State OSPI 66.78% 66.78% 66.78% 66.78% 66.78% 66.78% OSPI Square Footage Per Student OSPI 90 108 130 90 108 130 School Capacities Distri ct Standards 650 800 1,500 650 800 1,500 Site Acreage District Standards 12 24 36 12 24 36 Site Cost per Acre District Standards $533,937 $533,937 $533,937 $533,937 $533,937 $533,937 Student Generation Rates CFP Calculation 0.331 0.118 0.161 0.431 0.154 0.152 Residential development in the District continues to add students to elementary, middle, and high schools. It has also increased the 2025 student generation rates for single-family and multi -family residences. These student generation rates are based on residential development data compiled for single-family and multi -family dwelling units. The development data for single-family residences was collected from ten residential developments and serves as a fitting representation of students generated by single-family dwellings throughout the District. The development data available for multi -family units was limited to three developments including one development with an exceptionally high Student Generation Rate. This limited data and high student generation rate at one multi- family development has resulted in a high overall Student Generation Rate and high impact fee for 2025 for multi -family dwellings. In recognition of this, the District has made a discretionary adjustment to this fee and reduced it to match the multi -family fee collected in 2024. Auburn School District No. 408 17 2025 Capital Facilities Plan The following table shows the impact fee calculation for single-family residences. Table 14: Impact Fee Calculation — Single -Family Residence SCHOOL SITE ACQUISTION COST Grade Level Site Acreage Cost per Acre School Capacity Site Cost er Student Student Gen. Rate Cost per SFR Elementary 12 $533,937 650 $0 0.331 $0 Middle 24 $533,937 800 $0 0.118 $0 High 36 1 $533,937 1 1,500 $0 1 0.545 1 $0 TOTAL $0 SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COST Grade Level Facility Cost Student Capacity Percent Permanent SF Facility Cost per Student Student Gen. Rate Cost per SFR Elementary $0 650 0.9773 $0 0.331 $0 Middle $182,000,000 800 0.9128 $207,662 0.118 $24,504 High $0 1,500 1 0.9487 $0 1 0.545 1 $0 TOTAL I I I 1 1 $24,504 PORTABLE CLASSROOM COST Grade Level Facility Cost Student Capacity Percent Portable SF Facility Cost per Student Student Gen. Cost per SFR Elementary $250,000 20.29 0.0227 $280 0.331 $93 Middle $2507000 28.02 0.0872 $778 0.118 $92 High $0 28.74 0.0513 $0 0.545 $0 TOTAL 1 $184 STATE MATCH CREDIT Grade Level Construction Cost Allowance OSPI SF Per Student State Match % State Match per Student Student Gen. Rate Cost per SFR Elementary $375.00 90 0.6678 $0 0.331 $0 Middle $375.00 108 0.6678 $0 0.118 $0 High $375.00 130 0.6678 $0 0.545 $0 TOTAL $0 TAX CREDIT Category Residential Assessed Value Debt Service Tax Rate G.O. Bond Interest Rate Years Amortized Tax Credit Single Family $602,781 1.78915 0.0415 10 $8,682 IMPACT FEE SUMMARY — SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE Site Cost per Acre Permanent Facility Cost Portable Clrm. Cost State Match Credit Tax Credit 50% Local Share Impact Fee SFR $0 $24,504 $184 $0 $8,682 0.500 $8,003 Auburn School District No. 408 2025 Capital Facilities Plan The following table shows the impact fee calculation for multi -family residences. Table 15: Impact Fee Calculation — Multi -Family Residence SCHOOL SITE ACQUISTION COST Grade Level Site Acreage Cost per Acre School Capacity Site Cost er Student Student Gen. Rate Cost per MFR Elementary 12 $533,937 650 $0 0.431 $0 Middle 24 $533,937 800 $0 0.154 $0 High 36 $533,937 1,500 $0 0.152 $0 TOTAL I I 1 1 $0 SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COST Grade Level Facility Cost Student Capacity Percent Permanent SF Facility Cost per Student Student Gen. Rate Cost per MFR Elementary $0 650 0.9773 $0 0.431 $0 Middle $182,000,000 800 0.9128 $207,662 0.154 $31,980 High $0 1,500 0.9487 $0 0.152 $0 TOTAL I I 1 1 $31,980 PORTABLE CLASSROOM COST Grade Level Facility Cost Student Capacity Percent Portable SF Facility Cost per Student Student Gen. Rate Cost per MFR Elementary $250,000 20.29 0.0227 $280 0.431 $121 Middle $250,000 28.02 0.0872 $778 0.154 $120 High $0 28.74 0.0513 $0 0.152 $0 TOTAL I 1 $240 STATE MATCH CREDIT Grade Level Construction Cost Allowance OSPI SF Per Student State Match % State Match per Student Student Gen. Rate Cost per MFR Elementary $375.00 90 0.6678 $0 0.431 $0 Middle $375.00 108 0.6678 $0 0.154 $0 High $375.00 130 0.6678 $0 0.152 $0 TOTAL $0 TAX CREDIT Category Residential Assessed Value Debt Service Tax Rate G.O. Bond Interest Rate Years Amortized Cost per MFR Single Family $228,511 1.78915 0.0348 10 $3,404 IMPACT FEE SUMMARY — MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENCE Site Cost per Acre Permanent Facility Cost Portable Clrm. Cost State Match Credit Tax Credit 50% Local Share Impact Fee MFR $0 $31,980 $240 $0 $3,404 0.500 $14,408 Auburn School District Adjustment $5,442 $8,966 Auburn School District No. 408 19 2025 Capital Facilities Plan SECTION 8 - CONCLUSIONS New housing units continue to be built in the District, and the student population continues to grow. The student population is projected to increase during the next ten years but at a slower rate than in the past 10 years. The District built two new elementary schools and replaced five elementary schools with larger facilities during the past five years. This increased elementary school capacity, and it now fully accommodates current elementary students. However, the District continues to lack permanent classroom space to accommodate middle and high school students, including students from new growth. Consequently, 82 portable classrooms are being used to accommodate middle and high school students and are part of the District's short-term capacity solution. Because of a shortage of permanent classrooms in middle schools, the District is considering placing a bond proposition on the ballot in November 2025. This includes funding to build an additional middle school. The District is also monitoring annual enrollment levels and bonding capacity to determine when an additional high school should be built. During the past year, the District experienced an increase in the construction cost for a new middle school and an increase in single-family and multi -family Student Generation Rates. This contributed to an increase in the impact fee for single-family residences from $4,584 to $8,003. It also contributed to an increase in the impact fee for multi -family residences. Based on an application of King County Code 21A and its associated formula, the District's 2025 impact fee for multi -family residences would increase from $8,966 to $14,408. The District has adjusted this fee and reduced it to match the multi -family fee collected in 2024. This discretionary reduction was made to establish a more stable impact fee for students generated from multi -family developments. The District's 2025-2031 Capital Facilities Plan will be submitted for adoption by the Auburn School District Board of Directors. After adoption, the Plan, including its 2025 impact fee rates, will be submitted to King County and the Cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific. The submission to these public agencies will include a request that the jurisdictions adopt the plan and include the plan as an element in their Comprehensive Plans. Auburn School District No. 408 20 ,%313URIV SCHOOL DISTRICT ENGAGE - EDUCATE - EMPOWER May 23, 2025 Honorable Nancy Backus Mayor City of Auburn 25 W Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 nbackus(aD_auburnwa.gov Dear Mayor Backus: (SENT VIA EMAIL) Enclosed are the Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) and Environmental Checklist for the adoption of Auburn School District's 2025-2031 Capital Facilities Plan. The comment period on the DNS expires at 4:30 p.m. on June 6, 2025. Sincerely, Jeffrey L. Grose Executive Director, Capital Projects Enclosures: 2025 SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS), 5/23/2025, 2 Pages SEPA Environmental Checklist, 5/23/2025, 26 Pages Cc: Gabriel Clark — City of Auburn (GClark(a-)_auburnwa.gov) Alexandria Teague — City of Auburn (ATeague(.auburnwa.gov) James P. Fugate Administration Building • 915 Fourth Street NE • Auburn, WA 98002-4499 • 253-931-4900 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Issued with a 14-day comment period Description of Proposal: This threshold determination analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the following actions, which are so closely related to each other that they are in effect a single course of action: 1. The adoption of the Auburn School District's Capital Facilities Plan 2025-2031 by the Auburn School District No. 408 for the purposes of planning for the facilities needs of the District; 2. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plans of King County and the cities of Auburn, Black Diamond, and Kent to include the Auburn School District's Capital Facilities Plan 2025-2031 as part of the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan; and 3. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plans of the cities of Algona and Pacific to include the Auburn School District's Capital Facilities Plan 2025-2031 as part of the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. Proponent: Auburn School District No. 408 Location of the Proposal: The Auburn School District includes an area of approximately 62 square miles. Portions of unincorporated King County and County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific fall within the District's boundaries. Lead Agency: Auburn School District No. 408 The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse environmental impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after a review of the completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public upon request. This Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issue. Comments must be submitted by 4:30 p.m. on June 6, 2025. The responsible official will reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and may retain, modify, or, if significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS. If the DNS is retained, it will be final after the expiration of the comment deadline. Responsible Official: Dr. Alan Spicciati Superintendent Auburn School District No. 408 Address: Auburn School District 915 4th Street NE Auburn, WA 98002 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Issued with a 14-day comment period Questions may be directed and comments may be submitted by 4:30 p.m., June 6, 2025, to: Jeffrey L. Grose, Executive Director, Capital Projects, Auburn School District No. 408, 915 4 h Street NE, Auburn, WA 98002. Date of Issue: May 23, 2025 Date Published: May 23, 2025 SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization, or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use "not applicable" or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision -making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for lead agencies Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B, plus the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions (Part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non -projects) questions in "Part B: Environmental Elements" that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 1 of 26 A. Background Find help answering background questions 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: The adoption of the Auburn School District's (the "District") 2025 Capital Facilities Plan ("CFP") for the purposes of planning for the District's educational facilities needs. Adoption of the CFP is a nonproject proposal. The District prepares annual updates to the CFP in accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act, and the codes of King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific. The CFP is a nonproject planning document, covers a six -year planning period, and includes: • Future enrollment forecasts for each grade span (elementary, middle and high school). • An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by the District, showing the locations and capacities of those facilities • A forecast of the future needs for capital facilities and the proposed capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. • A six -year plan for financing capital facilities within projected funding capacities which identifies sources of public money for such purposes. • A calculation of school impact fees to be assessed pursuant to RCW 82.02 The District prepares the CFP primarily as a basis for seeking, where eligible, school impact fees to help address school capacity impacts related to residential growth. The District's Board of Directors will review and consider approval and adoption of the 2025 CFP. If approved and adopted, the District will send the CFP to King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific for consideration of inclusion into their respective Comprehensive Plans. A copy of the District's draft Capital Facilities Plan is available for review in the District's office. 2. Name of applicant: Auburn School District No. 408 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 915 4th Street NE Auburn, WA 98002 Jeffrey L. Grose, Executive Director, Capital Projects (253)931-4826 4. Date checklist prepared: May 15, 2025 5. Agency requesting checklist: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 2 of 26 Auburn School District No. 408, acting as the lead agency for environmental review and SEPA compliance for this nonproject proposal. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The District's 2025 CFP is scheduled to be considered for adoption by the District School Board on or about June 9, 2025. If the Board of Directors approves and adopts the 2025 CFP, it will be sent to King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific for consideration of inclusion into the Capital Facilities Element of their respective Comprehensive Plans. The potential projects referenced in the CFP will be subject to project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. This is a nonproject planning action and addresses educational planning for the entirety of the Auburn School District. The 2025 CFP includes required six -year enrollment projections and related school capacities to determine whether additional school capacity may be needed to accommodate enrollment growth from new development. During the six -year planning period, and subject to funding, the District plans to replace Alpac Elementary School, replace Cascade Middle School, and construct a new middle school (Middle School #5) to address student capacity needs. The District is also plans for miscellaneous improvements at 22 existing facilities. Portables may also be added at or relocated to existing school sites within the next six years. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. All potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP that may be proposed and require threshold determinations will undergo environmental review at the time of formal proposal and process when full details of the projects are known and able to be analyzed. 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. This is a nonproject action and addresses educational planning for the entirety of the Auburn School District. There are no known applications covering the entire District and no known third party applications for any of the sites for which a specific development project is identified. The District did recently submit a civil construction permit for work on the Middle School #5 project. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. As a non -project planning document, the 2025 CFP itself does not require permitting. The District anticipates that, following any Board approval and adoption of the CFP, its jurisdictions will consider incorporation of the 2025 CFP by reference in the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan to inform student enrollment capacity planning related to existing and planned residential development. Any specific projects referenced in the CFP, if proposed for action, will be subject to project -level permitting and review. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 3 of 26 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 do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) This is a non -project planning document, addresses educational planning for the entirety of the Auburn School District, and involves the adoption of a six -year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) by the Auburn School District to comply with the Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070) and the codes of King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific. The purpose of the CFP is to provide these jurisdictions with a description of enrollment projections and school capacities over the required six -year planning period 2025-2031 to determine whether future school capacity/facilities may be needed to accommodate student enrollment growth as a result of new residential development. If the Board of Directors approves and adopts the 2025 CFP, it will be sent to King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific for consideration of inclusion into the Capital Facilities Element of their respective Comprehensive Plan. Potential projects referenced in the CFP will be subject to project -specific environmental review at the time of formal proposal and process when full details of the projects are known and able to be analyzed. The District updates the Capital Facilities Plan on an annual basis and carefully monitors enrollment projections against capacity needs. If legally supportable, the District requests its local jurisdictions to collect impact fees on behalf of the District to provide for growth -related student capacity needs, with the CFP providing a basis for such collection. The impact fees requested in this year's Capital Facilities Plan are based on the growth related middle school construction project. A copy of the 2025 CFP is available for review upon request to the District. 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. The 2025 CFP applies to educational planning within the Auburn School District boundaries. The District boundaries include an area of approximately 62 square miles. Portions of unincorporated King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific fall within the District's boundaries. The District's CFP contains a map of the District's boundaries. A detailed map of the District's boundaries can be viewed at the District's offices. B. Environmental Elements Applicant/Agency Added Note: The Proposal is an educational facilities non project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval of any particular use. WAC 197-11- 960 provides, in part, that "For nonproject proposals complete this checklist and the supplemental sheet SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 4 of 26 for nonproject actions (Part D). The lead agency may exclude any question for the environmental elements (Part B) which they determine do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively." In order to provide as much information as possible about the proposal, the District has completed Part B even though it is not required. See Part D, Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 1. Earth Find help answering earth questions a. General description of the site: Circle or highlight one: Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: This is a non -project action. The geographic area comprising the Auburn School District includes a variety of topographic land forms and gradients. Specific topographic characteristics of the sites at which potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP are located will be identified during project -level environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project specifics are known and able to be analyzed. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? There are a variety of slopes with differing level of steepness on properties located throughout the geographic area of the District. Any projects referenced in the CFP that may be proposed for action would include an evaluation of project/site-specific slopes during project review. 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 agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. There are a variety of soil types on properties located throughout the geographic area of the District. Any projects referenced in the CFP, if proposed for action, would include an evaluation of project/site- specific soils during project review. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Unstable soils may exist within the geographic area comprising the District. Specific soil limitations on individual sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP may include filing, excavation, and grading. Details of any such actions will be assessed and identified during project -level environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project specifics are known and able to be analyzed. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The proposal as a nonproject planning action does not include filling, excavation, or grading components. nor approve of any project for that purpose Individual projects referenced in the 2025 CFP, if proposed for action, will assess this component during project -level environmental review at the appropriate time SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 5 of 26 during formal proposal when project specifics are known and able to be analyzed. f. Could erosion occur because of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. The proposal as a nonproject planning action does not include clearing, construction, or specific use in itself (nor does it approve any such use). It is possible that erosion could occur as a result of the construction of projects referenced in the UP that may be proposed for action. The erosion impacts of the individual projects will be evaluated on a site -specific basis at the time of project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project specifics are known and able to be analyzed. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The proposal as a nonproject planning action doesn't include plans for impervious surface nor approve of any project for that purpose. Individual projects referenced in the 2025 UP, if proposed, will be on sites with impervious surface coverage anticipated, the details of which will be assessed during project - level environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project specifics are known and able to be analyzed. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. This is a non -project action. The erosion potential of any project referenced in the UP that may be proposed for action, as well as any appropriate control measures, will be addressed during project - specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project specifics are known and able to be analyzed. Individual projects will be subject to all local approval processes. Without limitation, relevant erosion reduction and control requirements will be met. 2. Air Find help answering air questions a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during constructiontoperation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. The proposal as a nonproject planning action doesn't in itself include the potential for emissions nor approve of any project for that purpose. Various emissions, many construction -related, may result from individual projects referenced in the 2025 UP that may be proposed for action. The air -quality impacts of each potential project will be evaluated during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Non -Project Actions. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. This is a non -project action. Any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect the individual projects referenced in the 2025 UP will be addressed during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 6 of 26 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. This is a non -project action. The individual potential projects in the 2025 CFP will be addressed during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed and will be subject to local approval processes. Proposed measures will be identified at that time. The District will be required to comply with all applicable air regulations and air permit requirements. 3. Water Find help answering water questions a. Surface Water: Find help answering surface water questions 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. As a nonproject planning action, the proposal includes the entire geographic area of the Auburn School District, and there is a network of surface water bodies in the geographic area comprising District. The surface water bodies that are in the immediate vicinity of the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP will be identified during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. When necessary, the surface water regimes and flow patterns will be researched and incorporated into the designs of the individual projects. 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. This is a non -project action. The potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP may require work near the surface waters located within the District and analysis of such will be included during project - specific environmental review during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Applicable local and/or state approval requirements will be satisfied. 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. As a nonproject planning action, the proposal itself will not result in fill or dredging activities nor approve of any project for that purpose. Information with respect to the placement or removal of fill and dredge material as a component of the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP, if proposed for action, will be provided during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. This is a non -project action. Any surface water withdrawals or diversions required in connection with the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP will be addressed during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 7 of 26 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. As a nonproject planning action, the proposal includes the entire geographic area of the Auburn School District, and the geographic area comprising the District includes 100-year floodplain areas. Review of potential projects within a 100-year floodplain referenced in the 2025 CFP will be addressed during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 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. As a nonproject planning action, the proposal itself will not result in discharge of waste materials to surface waters nor approve of any project for that purpose. Specific information regarding the discharge of waste materials that may be required as a result of the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP will be provided during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. b. Ground Water: Find help answering= izround water auestions 1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. This is a non -project action. Individual potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP, if proposed, may impact groundwater resources. Those impacts will be addressed during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Each project will be subject to applicable local and/or state regulations. 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following 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) are expected to serve. As a nonproject planning action, the proposal itself will not result in discharge of waste materials into the ground nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project referenced therein. The discharge of waste material that may take place in connection with the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP will be addressed during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. c. Water Runoff (including stormwater): a) 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. As a nonproject planning action, the proposal itself will not result in runoff nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project referenced therein. Individual potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP may have stormwater runoff consequences. Specific information regarding the stormwater impacts SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 8 of 26 of each project will be addressed during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Each project will be subject to applicable local and/or state stormwater regulations. b) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. This is a non -project action. The potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP, if proposed, may result in the discharge of waste materials into ground or surface waters. The specific impacts of each potential project on ground and surface waters will be identified during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Each project will be subject to all applicable regulations regarding the discharge of waste materials into ground and surface waters. c) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. This is a non -project action and will not in itself alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project referenced therein. The specific impacts of any project referenced in the CFP on drainage patterns will be identified during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. d) Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any. Specific measures to reduce or control runoff impacts associated with the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP will be addressed during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Each project will be subject to regulations related to altering or diverting drainage patterns. 4. Plants Find help answering plants questions a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: ❑ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ❑ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other Elshrubs grass El pasture El crop or grain ❑ orchards, vineyards, or other permanent crops. ❑ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ❑ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ❑ other types of vegetation This is a non -project planning document and includes educational planning for the Auburn School District. A variety of vegetative zones are located within the District. Inventories of the vegetation located on the sites of potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP, if proposed for action, will be developed during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 9 of 26 b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? This is a non -project action and will not in itself alter or remove vegetation nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project for that purpose. Some of the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP may require the removal or alteration of vegetation. The specific impacts on vegetation of the projects referenced in the CFP will be identified during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. This is a non -project educational planning proposal affecting the entirety of the Auburn School District. The geographic area comprising the District may include threatened and endangered species. An inventory of species that have been observed on or near the sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP, if proposed for action, will be developed during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Investigation will include use of the Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife's Priority Habitats and Specifies on the Web database. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. This is a non -project action. Measures to preserve or enhance vegetation at the sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP will be identified during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Each project will be subject to applicable local landscaping requirements. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. This is a non -project action and does not involve a specific site (or a specific project). Noxious weeds and invasive species observed on or near the sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP, if proposed for action, will be identified during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 5. Animals Find help answering animal questions a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: • Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: • Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: • Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: This is a non -project planning document and includes educational planning for the Auburn School District. An inventory of species that have been observed on or near the sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP, if proposed for action, will be developed during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 10 of 26 b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. This is a non -project educational planning proposal affecting the entirety of the Auburn School District. The geographic area comprising the District may include threatened and endangered species. Inventories of threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the sites of the projects referenced in the 2025 CFP will be developed during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Investigation will include use of the Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife's Priority Habitats and Specifies on the Web database. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. This is a non -project educational planning proposal affecting the entirety of the Auburn School District. The geographic area comprising the District may include migration routes. The impacts of the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP on migration routes will be addressed during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. This is a non -project action. Appropriate measures to preserve or enhance wildlife will be determined during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. This is a non -project educational planning proposal affecting the entirety of the Auburn School District and is not specific to a project on any particular site. The geographic area comprising the District may include invasive animal species. Invasive animal species observed on or near the sites of potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP, if proposed for action, will be identified during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 6. Energy and Natural Resources Find help answering energy and natural resource questions 1. 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. This is a non -project action and will not in itself use energy nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project referenced therein. The State's Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction requires the completion of a life -cycle cost analysis of all heating, lighting, and insulation systems before it will permit specific school projects to proceed. The energy needs of the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP will be determined at the time of specific engineering and site design planning at the appropriate time when project details are known. 2. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 11 of 26 This is a non -project action and will not in itself affect use of solar energy on adjacent properties nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project for that purpose. The impacts of the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP on the solar potential of adjacent properties will be addressed during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 3. 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. This is a non -project action. Energy conservation measures proposed in connection with the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP will be considered during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 7. Environmental Health Find help with answering environmental health questions a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur because of this proposal? If so, describe. This is a non -project planning document and includes educational planning for the Auburn School District. Individual projects identified in the CFP will be subject to project -specific environmental review and local and/or state approval at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. At that time, environmental health hazards, if any, would be identified and addressed. 1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. This is a non -project educational planning proposal affecting the entirety of the Auburn School District. The geographic area comprising the District may include areas of known or possible contamination from present or past uses. Individual projects identified in the CFP will be subject to project -specific environmental review and local and/or state approval at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. At that time, known or possible contamination, if any, would be identified and addressed. . 2. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. This is a non -project action. The potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP, if proposed for action, will comply with all current codes, standards, rules and regulations. Individual projects will be subject to project -specific environmental review and local and/or state approval at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 3. Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. As a nonproject planning action, the proposal itself will not result in storage, use, or production of toxic or hazardous chemicals nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project for that purpose. Toxic and hazardous chemicals that may be stored or produced by the potential projects referenced in SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 12 of 26 the 2025 CFP will be subject to project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Such projects will comply with all current codes, standards, rules and regulations related to hazardous materials. 4. Describe special emergency services that might be required. This is a non -project action. The need for special emergency services for the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP will be subject to project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Educational facilities in themselves may require special emergency services and any such services would be identified at project -level environmental review of individual projects identified in the CFP when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 5. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. While this nonproject planning action does not itself identify environmental health hazards, individual potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP will be subject to project -specific environmental review impacts for related environmental health hazards at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? This is a non -project educational planning proposal affecting the entirety of the Auburn School District. The geographic area comprising the District contains a variety of noises from traffic, construction, residential, commercial and industrial uses. The specific noise sources that may affect the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP will be identified during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site)? This is a non -project action. The potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP may create typical construction noises that will exist on a short-term basis. The projects could increase construction -related traffic around the construction sites on a short-term basis. Because the projects will increase the capacity of the District's school facilities, the projects may increase traffic -related or operations -related noise on a longer -term basis once the new facilities are constructed and opened. Specifics of noise level changes will be evaluated during project -specific review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. This is a non -project action. The projected noise impacts of the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP will be evaluated and mitigated during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Each project will be subject to applicable local and/or state regulations. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 13 of 26 8. Land and Shoreline Use Find help answering land and shoreline use questions a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. This is a non -project educational planning proposal affecting the entirety of the Auburn School District. The geographic area comprising the District includes a variety of land uses including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, utility, open space, recreational, etc. Impacts from potential projects referenced within the CFP to nearby or adjacent properties will be evaluated as part of the project - specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses because of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? This is a non -project action and not specific to a particular site. Identification of the use of sites intended for any potential projects referenced in the CFP as working farmlands or working forest land will be identified and described during project -level environmental review when appropriate. Potential projects referenced within the 2025 CFP do not involve sites used for working farmlands or working forest lands. 1. Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how? This is a non -project action and will not itself affect or be affected by working farms/forestland, nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project for that purpose. Any possible affects to surrounding farms or forest lands will be evaluated during project -specific environmental review for any project referenced in the CFP, if proposed, at the appropriate during when project details are known and able to be analyzed. c. Describe any structures on the site. This is a non -project action and not specific to a site. Any structures located on the proposed sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP will be identified and described during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. For replacement school projects, including at Cascade Middle School and Alpac Elementary School, the existing school structures are located on each site and any demolition or proposed alteration will be reviewed as a part of project -level review. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? This is a non -project action. Any structures that will be demolished as a result of any project referenced in the CFP, if proposed, has been or will be identified during project -level environmental review when appropriate. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 14 of 26 This is a non -project educational planning action and not specific to any site, and the CFP proposed here will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval of any particular use. There are a variety of zoning classifications throughout the District. Projects referenced in the 2025 Capital Facilities Plan are zoned under applicable zoning codes and identification of the potential projects or sites does not in itself direct land uses or serve as a basis for project -specific approvals. Rather, site -specific zoning information and requirements for projects that may be proposed for project activity in the 2025 CFP will be evaluated during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. To the extent any of the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP are proposed for sites not currently zoned for the intended educational purpose or to the extent a site within the District's inventory is proposed in the future for a project not currently permitted within the zoning district, the local jurisdiction with zoning authority would need to evaluate and process any necessary zoning changes and conduct all required public notice and environmental review. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? This is a non -project educational planning action and not specific to any site, and the CFP proposed here will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval of any particular use. District boundaries span multiple jurisdictions and the District owns facilities or properties in the unincorporated areas of King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific. The sites for the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP that may be proposed for project activity are located among these jurisdictions and subject to the respective codes and comprehensive plans. To the extent any of the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP are proposed for sites not currently designated in the relevant comprehensive plan for the intended educational purpose or to the extent a site within the District's inventory is proposed in the future for a project not currently permitted by the underlying comprehensive plan designation, the local jurisdiction with land use authority would need to evaluate and process any necessary comprehensive plan amendments and conduct all required public notice and environmental review. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? This is a non -project action. Shoreline master program designations of the sites for the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP, if proposed for action, will be identified during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. This is a non -project action and does not involve a particular site for the educational planning purpose of the proposal. Any environmentally sensitive areas located on the sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP, if proposed for action, will be identified during project -specific environmental review. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? As a nonproject educational planning action, the proposal is not specific to a particular project. The Auburn School District student enrollment for the 2024-25 school year is 17,312. In -District enrollment is expected to increase to approximately 17,532 by the 2029-2031 school year. The District employs approximately 1,700 people. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 15 of 26 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? This is a non -project action and will not itself result in displacement of people. It is not anticipated that any of the referenced projects in the 2025 CFP that may be proposed will displace any people as a result of any project moving forward/. Final determination of any displacement caused by any potential project will be evaluated during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time when project details are known and able to be analyzed. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. This is a non -project action. It is not anticipated that any of the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP that may be proposed will displace any people from the sites. Individual projects referenced in this CFP, if proposed for action, will be subject to project -specific environmental review and local approval when appropriate. Proposed mitigating measures will be determined at that time, if necessary. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. This is a non -project educational planning document. The purpose of a school district Capital Facilities Plan is to provide local jurisdictions with a six -year projection of enrollment and identification of school capacity to determine the need for new school facilities to accommodate growth from new residential development that the local jurisdiction may permit, and to provide a basis for the assessment of school impact fees, if appropriate. The 2025 CFP has been developed consistent with RCW 36.70A and RCW 82.02.020. If the Board of Directors approves and adopts the 2025 CFP it will be sent to King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific for consideration of inclusion into the Capital Facilities Element of their respective Comprehensive Plan. Individual projects referenced in the 2025 CFP that may be proposed for action will be evaluated for compatibility with existing land uses and plans during project -specific environmental and permit review. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any. This is a non -project action. Any referenced projects in the Capital Facilities Plan that may be proposed for development will be evaluated for compatibility with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long- term commercial significance has been or will be identified and described during project -level environmental review when appropriate. 9. Housing Find help answering housing questions a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. The nonproject educational planning action does not propose any new housing units, and the potential school facility projects referenced in the 2025 CFP would not involve the provision of new housing units. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 16 of 26 b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. This nonproject educational planning action would not in itself eliminate any units nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project that would do so. It is not anticipated that the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP, if proposed, will eliminate any housing units. The impacts of the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP, if proposed, on existing housing will be evaluated during project - specific environmental review at the appropriate time. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. This is a non -project action. Measures to reduce or control any housing impacts caused by the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP will be addressed during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time. The CFP itself serves as a basis for a local jurisdiction to determine housing impacts to needed school capacity and serve as a basis for assessing school impact fees. 10. Aesthetics Find help answering aesthetics questions a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? This is a non -project educational planning action and not specific to any site. Structural heights associated with any referenced project in the 2025 CFP that may be proposed for development will be addressed during project -specific environmental review, when appropriate. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? This is a non -project educational planning action and not specific to any site. Views associated with the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP will be addressed during project -specific environmental review, when appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. This is a non -project action. Appropriate measures to reduce or control the aesthetic impacts of any referenced project in the 2025 CFP that may be proposed for development will be determined on a project -specific basis, when appropriate. 11. Light and Glare Find help answering light and glare questions a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? This is a non -project educational planning action and not specific to any site or building/structure. The light or glare impacts of any referenced project in the 2025 CFP that may be proposed for development will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when project details are known and able to be analyzed. In general, school facilities operate during the day with some post -school hour operations for extracurricular activities and include site safety lighting depending on the particular site location and design. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 17 of 26 b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? This is a non -project action. The light or glare impacts of any referenced project in the 2025 UP that may be proposed for development will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when project details are known and able to be analyzed. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? This is a non -project action. Off -site sources of light or glare that may affect any referenced project in the 2025 CFP that may be proposed for development will be evaluated during project -specific environmental review when project details are known and able to be analyzed. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. This is a non -project action. Proposed measures to mitigate the light or glare impacts of any referenced project in the 2025 UP that may be proposed for development will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 12. Recreation Find hela answerine recreation auestions a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? This is a non -project action and addresses educational planning throughout the geographic boundaries of the Auburn School District. There are a variety of formal and informal recreational facilities within the District boundaries. These include both District -owned facilities and other public and private recreational facilities. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. This is a non -project action and will not itself displace existing recreational uses nor will it serve as a basis for any future project to do so. Any proposed new school facilities and modernizations to existing school facilities may enhance recreational opportunities and uses. Specific recreational impacts of any referenced project in the 2025 UP that may be proposed for development will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when project details are known and able to be analyzed. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. This is a non -project action. Adverse recreational impacts of any referenced project in the 2025 UP that may be proposed for development will be subject to mitigation during project -specific environmental review. A school site usually provides recreational facilities to the community in the form of playfields and gymnasiums that may be used outside of school hours. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation Find help answering historic and cultural preservation questions a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 18 of 26 listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. This is a non -project action and addresses educational planning throughout the geographic boundaries of the Auburn School District. There may be sites eligible for register listing located throughout the geographic area. The District will evaluate, when a school site is located for potential development, whether there are known places or objects listed on, or proposed for, such registers which may be proposed for development. The existence of historic and cultural resources on or next to the sites will be addressed in more detail during project -specific environmental review. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. This is a non -project action. The geographic area comprising the District may include landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation. An inventory of historical sites at or near the sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP will be developed during project -specific environmental review. At a minimum, research will be conducted on the web using the Washington State Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation's Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) resource. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. This is a non -project action. Any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation, or material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance, on or near sites intended for any projects referenced in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified and described during project -level environmental review when appropriate. Appropriate methods will be proposed on a project -specific basis. At a minimum, research will be conducted on the web using the Washington State Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation's Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) resource. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. This is a non -project action. The impact on cultural or historic resources of the individual potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when project details are known. 14. Transportation Find help with answering transportation questions a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 19 of 26 This is a non -project educational planning proposal affecting the entirety of the Auburn School District. The geographic area comprising the District contains a variety of roads, streets, and highways. The impact on public streets and highways of the individual, potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP, if proposed for action, will be addressed during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? This is a non -project action. The relationship between public transit and individual potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP will be addressed during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. District schools are regularly served by District transportation service (yellow bus). c. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle, or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). This is a non -project action and the educational planning purpose of the CFP will not in itself require any transportation improvements. The need for new streets or roads, or improvements to existing streets and roads associated with individual potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP will be addressed during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. d. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. This is a non -project action and does not in itself involve a proposed use nor does it serve as a basis for such use. Use of water, rail or air transportation associated with individual potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP will be addressed during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. e. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed projector proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? This is a non -project action and will not in itself generate vehicular trips nor serve as a basis for approval of a project that would. The traffic impacts of individual potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP that may be proposed for development will be addressed during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Approved data models will be used to evaluate trips generated by individual projects. f. Will the proposal interfere with, affect, or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 20 of 26 This is a non -project action and will neither itself nor serve as a basis for approval of any project that would be affected by movement of agricultural or forest projects on roads/streets.. The traffic impacts of individual potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP that may be proposed for development will be addressed during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. This is a non -project action. The mitigation of traffic impacts associated with individual potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP that may be proposed for development will be addressed during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 15. Public Services Find helD answerine Dublic service auestions a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The District does not anticipate that the projects identified in the CFP that may be proposed for development or the CFP itself will significantly increase the need for public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. This is a non -project action. Any potential new school facilities that are referenced in the CFP and may be proposed for development will be code compliant and constructed with automatic security systems, fire alarms, smoke alarms, heat sensors, and sprinkler systems consistent with local and/or state requirements. 16. Utilities Find help answering utilities questions Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: This is a non -project action and does not involve a particular site or project, nor does it serve as the basis for approval of any particular project referenced in the CFP. Storm, power, and water are currently available to the sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP. Other utilities are either available or the District will apply for approval of alternative sewage disposal systems/procedures. The types of utilities available at specific project sites will be addressed in detail during project -specific environmental review at the time of formal proposal when project details are fully known. b. 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. This is a non -project action. Utility revisions and construction needs will be identified during project - specific environmental review when project details are fully known. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 21 of 26 C. Signature Find help about who should sign 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. Type name of signee: Jeffrey L Grose Position and agency/organization: Executive Director, Capital Projects, Auburn School District Date submitted: 5/23/2025 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 22 of 26 D. Supplemental sheet for non project actions Find help for the nonproiect actions wnrksheet IT IS NOT REQUIRED to use this section for project actions. Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. APPLICANT/AGENCY ADDED NOTE: The 2025 CFP is an educational facilities non -project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval of any particular use. To the extent the Capital Facilities Plan makes it more likely that school facilities will be constructed, some of these environmental impacts may be more likely. However, neither approval of the CFP itself nor its inclusion as a part of any jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element serves as the basis for approval of any potential project referenced in the CFP that may be proposed for action, nor does it direct a land use approval of any site referenced in the CFP. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro- duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The 2025 CFP is an educational facilities non -project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval any of particular use. To the extent the CFP makes it likely that school facilities may be considered for action, there may be increased discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise. Additional impermeable surfaces, such as roofs, access roads, and sidewalks could increase stormwater runoff, which could enter surface or ground waters. Heating systems, emergency generators, and other school equipment that is installed pursuant to the Capital Facilities Plan could result in air emissions. The projects referenced in the Capital Facilities Plan should not require the production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances, with the possible exception of the storage of diesel fuel or gasoline for emergency generating equipment. The District does not anticipate a significant increase in the production of noise from its facilities, with the possible exception of noise production due to short-term construction activities or the presences of additional students/school operations on a site. Construction impacts related to noise and air would be short term and are not anticipated to be significant. • Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Proposed measures to mitigate any such increases described above have been or will be addressed for any potential project referenced in the CFP that may be proposed for action during project -level environmental review when appropriate. Stormwater detention and runoff will meet applicable County and/or City requirements and may be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permitting requirements. Discharges to air will meet applicable air pollution control requirements. Fuel oil will be stored in accordance with local and state requirements. Noise impacts will evaluated under SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 23 of 26 local and state standards once when project details are known and able to be analyzed, and impacts will be mitigated appropriately. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The 2025 CFP is an educational facilities non -project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval any particular use. The potential projects included in the 2025 CFP are not likely to generate significant impacts to plants, animals, fish, or marine life. • Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: As needed, specific measures to protect and conserve plants, animals, and fish will be identified during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Applicable code and regulatory provisions protecting/conserving plants, animals, fish, or marine life will be followed. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The 2025 CFP is an educational facilities non -project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval any of particular use. Should the potential projects referenced in the 2025 CFP be proposed and constructed, they will require the consumption of energy. • Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: The potential projects referenced in the CFP, if proposed, will be constructed in accordance with applicable energy efficiency standards and requirements, and proposed measures needed to protect or conserve energy and natural resources have been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection, such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The 2025 CFP is an educational facilities non -project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval any of particular use and, as such, will not have an impact on these elements itself. Environmentally sensitive areas will be identified during project -specific enviromnental review of any project referenced in the CFP and proposed for action and will be consistently addressed with local and/or state requirements. • Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Appropriate measures as identified in collaboration with regulatory agencies will be proposed during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time of formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 24 of 26 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The 2025 CFP is an educational facilities non -project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval of any particular use and, as such, does not in itself dictate certain shoreline and land uses. Any projects referenced within the CFP and subsequently proposed for project -specific review and permitting will be reviewed for compliance with existing plans and would be subject to the relevant jurisdiction's land use process and approval requirements. • Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: This 2025 CFP is a non -project planning document and does not in itself dictate certain shoreline and land uses. Any projects referenced within the CFP and subsequently proposed for project -specific review and permitting will be reviewed and conditioned appropriately to avoid or reduce land use impacts. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The 2025 CFP is an educational facilities non -project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval of any particular use and, as such, does not itself create substantial new demands for transportation. The potential projects referenced in the CFP, if proposed, may create an increase in traffic near District facilities during the school year and during school start/end times. Impacts on transportation, public services, and utilities related to the potential projects referenced in the CFP will be addressed during project -specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. • Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: This 2025 CFP is a non -project planning document and, as such, does not itself create substantial new demands for transportation, public services, or utilities. Therefore, no measures to reduce or respond to such demands are proposed at this time. Any proposed measures to reduce demands on transportation, public services or utilities have been or would be done at the project -specific level of any project referenced in the CFP if proposed for action. Requirements of the permitting jurisdiction, as well as any additional measures identified during project -level environmental review, would be complied with as a part of the project. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The 2025 CFP is an educational facilities non -project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval of any particular use and does not conflict with any laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Specific projects referenced in the Capital Facilities Plan, if proposed, have been or will be reviewed under project -level environmental review requirements. The Washington Growth Management Act (the GMA) outlines 15 broad goals, including adequate provision of necessary public facilities and services. Schools are among these necessary facilities and services. The Capital Facilities Plan satisfies the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070, identifies additional school facilities necessary to meet the educational needs of the growing student populations anticipated in the District, and informs local jurisdictions regarding the impacts of new residential development on public school capacity. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 25 of 26 To evaluate if a proposed project identified in the 2025 CFP may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment, the District will, at a minimum and commencing as early as possible, review project proposal details against all applicable laws and regulations; obtain input and studies, as appropriate or required, from qualified consultants; coordinate and, as required, consult with the permitting jurisdiction and affected agencies; and consider appropriate mitigation measures and/or alternatives. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 26 of 26 P/T No. 2 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2025-2037 nnn="=AR= 'ram Dieringer School District #343 1320178t" Ave E, Lake Tapps, WA 98391 J 1 1 P a g e 2025-2031 Capital Facilities Plan Dieringer School District #343 1320 17811 Ave E Lake Tapps, WA 98391 Board of Directors Megan Bearor Greg Johnson Devin Craig Superintendent Paula Dawson, Ed.D. Prepared by: Laura Marcoe Executive Director of Business Services lmarcoe(«-)dieringer.wednet.edu (253) 826-7008 2 1 P a g e Table of Contents Executive Summary 4 Mission, Vision, Strategic Directions 4 Introduction 5 MAP 1: District Boundary Map 6 Emerging Issues 6 Building Condition Assessment Study 6 Capital Levy Planning Committee 7 NTMS Portable 7 Birth Rate Trend 7 Grade Configuration 7 Inventory of School and Support Facilities 8 TABLE 1: Inventory of Current School Facilities 8 TABLE 2: Inventory of Support Facilities 8 TABLE 3: School Building Square Feet and Site Acreage 8 Enrollment History and Projections 9 Enrollment History 9 TABLE 4: Historical Enrollment by Grade 9 GRAPH 1: Historical Enrollment Elementary Only 10 GRAPH 2: Historical Enrollment Middle School Only 10 Enrollment Projection 11 TABLE 5: Six Year Enrollment Projection 11 Enrollment Impacts - New Construction 12 TABLE 6: Housing Development - Active Permits 12 TABLE 7: Six Year Enrollment and Capacity Projections 13 Standard of Service 13 Capital Facilities & Financing Plan 14 Impact Fee Calculation 15 3 1 P a g e Executive Summary The Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan (the "plan") is a six -year plan intended to be reviewed and revised annually. It has been prepared by district staff to support the use of school impact fees as provided for under the Washington State Growth Management Act. This plan supports the implementation of school impact fees as have been authorized by Pierce County. This plan will also provide a basis for mitigation under the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) or the State Subdivision Act. Our Mission: Educating every child for confidence today and contribution tomorrow. Our Vision: The Dieringer School District will provide all students with appropriate high -quality programs in a safe, challenging and inclusive school environment. This mission will be undertaken with respect for and in partnership with families and the community. Strategic Directions: The Dieringer School District's Strategic Directions are anchored in three foundational priorities: • Foundation 1: Educate the Whole Child emphasizes rigorous academic standards, critical and innovative thinking skills, culturally responsive and inclusive practices, and a welcoming environment to foster academic, social, emotional, and physical well- being. • Foundation 2: Innovative Systems includes structures and practices that enhance teaching, learning, and operational efficiency which focus on a growth centered and safe workplace, continuous professional learning, fiscal stewardship and strategic plan alignment, and ensuring a skilled workforce. • Foundation 3: Community Engagement strengthens partnerships with families and the broader community through fostering a welcoming environment for parent and community members, preparing students for their future in conjunction with the community, and providing opportunities for authentic voice, ensuring collaboration and shared responsibility in supporting student success. Together, these foundations guide the district's commitment to excellence, equity, and continuous improvement. 4 1 P a g e Introduction The Dieringer School District (the "district") was established in 1890 and consolidated with Lake Tapps School District in 1936. Established in 1890, Dieringer School District (the "district") consolidated with Lake Tapps School District in 1936. The District's three schools, Lake Tapps Elementary School, Dieringer Heights Elementary School and North Tapps Middle School, provide K through 8t" grade education, and serve as hubs for community activities as well. Dieringer School District #343 is located in unincorporated Pierce County, bounded on the east by the White River, on the west by the Stuck River, on the north by the city of Auburn, and on the south by the cities of Bonney Lake and Sumner. The District surrounds the northern two-thirds of Lake Tapps and covers approximately 5.5 square miles. The current student enrollment is approximately 1,411 students in grades kindergarten through eight. Students in grades first through third are housed at Lake Tapps Elementary, constructed in 2005 as a replacement project. Construction was completed on an addition in September 2017. Dieringer Heights Elementary opened in the fall of 2000, with an addition completed in 2008, and is home to students in kindergarten, fourth and fifth grade. Dieringer Heights Elementary also houses two preschool classrooms and one Transition to Kindergarten classroom. Originally constructed in 1992 and added on to in 1998 and 2009, North Tapps Middle School houses students in grades sixth through eighth. The district supports an additional 614 high school students who may select to attend any public high school. The majority choose to attend Auburn Riverside, Sumner and Bonney Lake High Schools. The district has a long-standing history of providing high quality education for all our students. Our goal is for our students to gain the skills that will allow them to become successful, confident, and contributing members of society. Dieringer is composed of students who come to school well prepared and eager to learn. Parents are concerned with student success and provide outstanding support for their children and the Dieringer School District. The PTA and many volunteers contribute countless hours and resources to our schools and students. The community supports the schools through the passage of funding issues to support student access to current technology and the construction of school facilities. Impact fees, including interest, are held in reserve until used to meet District identified needs for site acquisition, additional facilities and improvements, and/or technology capital expenditures. 5 1 P a g e lk •� •I r ` `� , � FalrwealAer Core Wle T.,I. rai J � h6 hrl - •— 1 .r Kkiky Late ToW, bland .. Deer �kar; blond � ` CTa wfa d Late kern land � knd niFRINGERS O DISTRICT NO. 343 DISTRICTTBOUNDARY Y MAP ,rc,eoax� ,n.,wx� Leaky Lake .. Nferlaks 'S4 a Emerging Issues Building Condition Assessment Study In the summer of 2025, the school district will conduct a comprehensive Building Condition Assessment Study to evaluate the physical state of all district -owned facilities. This study will be carried out by qualified professionals and will include detailed inspections of structural systems, roofing, mechanical and electrical systems, plumbing, interior finishes, and site conditions. The assessment will identify maintenance needs, code compliance issues, and potential safety concerns, while also estimating the remaining useful life of major building components. The findings from this study will provide critical data to support long-range planning efforts and inform the work of the Capital Levy Planning Committee as it develops recommendations for the 2027-2030 replacement capital levy. 6 1 P a g e Capital Levy Planning Committee The district plans to convene a Capital Levy Planning Committee in the fall of 2025 to evaluate current and future facility needs and develop recommendations for inclusion in a replacement capital levy for the 2027-2030 cycle. This committee will consist of district staff, school board representatives, community members, and subject matter experts, who will work collaboratively to assess the condition of existing infrastructure, enrollment trends, educational program requirements, and safety and accessibility standards. The committee's analysis will guide the prioritization of projects to ensure alignment with long- term district goals and community expectations. Final recommendations will inform the proposed levy package, which will be presented to voters for approval most likely in February 2026. NTMS Portable To address the lack of available classroom space within the main building at North Tapps Middle School, the district will install single portable classroom in Summer 2025. Prior to this addition, one classroom was being held on the stage, highlighting the need for additional instructional space. The portable classroom provides a more appropriate and functional learning environment and supports the school's ability to meet current enrollment needs without compromising educational quality. Birth Rate Trend From 2016 through 2023, Pierce County saw birth counts decreased from 11,757 to 10,443. This information is relevant to K-12 school districts, as annual birth counts are viewed as a Leading indicator of future kindergarten enrollment. The district will continue to monitor annual birth counts in Pierce County for future enrollment projections. Grade Configuration The district has planned a changed in grade configuration scheduled for the 2026-27 school year. Currently, Lake Tapps Elementary serves grades 1, 2, and 3, while Dieringer Heights Elementary houses kindergarten, grade 5, and grade 6. The district plans to transition to a new configuration in which one school will serve kindergarten through grade 2, and the other will serve grades 3 through 5. This reconfiguration aims to better align instructional practices, foster more cohesive academic progression, and streamline transitions for students. While the shift supports long-term educational goals, it also presents immediate facility implications, including classroom utilization, potential remodeling, and transportation logistics, all of which must be addressed in future planning 7 1 P a g e Inventory of School and Support Facilities The Dieringer School District maintains almost 200,000 square feet of building space and owns over 29 acres of property. The following tables provide a summary of: • Inventory of Current School Facilities (Table 1) • Inventory of Support Facilities (Table 2) • School Building Square Feet and Site Acreage (Table 3) TABLE 1- Inventory of Current School Facilities School Lake Tapps Elementary 1320178th Ave E, Lake Tapps Pierce County Capacity 490 Dieringer Heights Elementary 21727 34th St E, Lake Tapps Pierce County 520 North Tapps Middle School 2002912th St E, Lake Tapps Pierce County 545 TOTAL 1555 TABLE 2 - Inventory of Support Facilthes District Office 1320178th Ave E, Lake Tapps Pierce County Transportation 1320178th Ave E, Lake Tapps Pierce Cou Maintenance/Grounds Warehouse 1320178th Ave E, Lake Tapps Pierce County ji TABLE 3 - School Building Square Feet and Site Acreage Number of Portable Permanent Portable Site Site Size (Acres) Square Feet Classrooms Lake Tapps Elementary 9.77 59,483 3 2,466 Dieringer Heights Elementary 5.56 57,028 North Tapps Middle School 13.78 79,235 1* 896 TOTAL 29.11 195,746 4 3,362 *NTMS portable is expected to be installed in July 2025 8 1 P a g e Enrollment History and Projections The information below examines the district's student enrollment history over the past seven school years and the district's enrollment projections through the 2030-31 school year. The data excludes enrollment in the Transition to Kindergarten program. A series of graphs is provided to display the district's enrollment data. Enrollment History Table 4 displays historical enrollment by grade and indicates a gradual decline in Kindergarten class sizes over time. However, enrollment tends to recover in the later grades, suggesting that some families may be opting for alternative Kindergarten programs or moving into the district after the early elementary years. This trend may be influenced by the higher -than -average home values in the Dieringer service area, which could delay family relocation until later stages of a child's education. School Live .. Table 4 - Historical Enrollment By Grade Birth Year 2008-09 Year 2014-15 Births 183 Births 86.34% K 158 1 207 2 170 3 167 4 165 5 165 6 173 7 153 8 181 Total Gain/Lo 1,539 - 2009-10 2015-16 189 73.02% 138 225 155 177 174 168 187 173 148 1,545 6 2010-11 2016-17 187 50.27% 94 187 144 162 161 175 177 168 160 1,428 (117) 2011-12 2017-18 192 71.35% 137 141 171 157 171 162 193 171 161 1,464 36 2012-13 2018-19 106 133.02% 141 145 157 181 153 174 168 195 164 1,478 14 2013-14 2019-20 92 156.52% 144 159 156 170 189 161 183 166 197 1,525 47 2014-15 2020-21 112 101.79% 114 130 147 143 158 179 155 163 157 1,346 (179) 2015-16 2021-22 115 117.39% 135 121 146 150 150 155 178 167 169 1,371 25 2016-17 2022-23 100 128.00% 128 159 138 158 155 154 173 181 168 1,414 43 2017-18 2023-24 115 106.09% 122 144 165 142 158 159 162 170 179 1,401 (13) 2019-20 2024-25 88 132.95% 117 130 158 177 142 164 177 172 173 1,410 9 9 1 P a g e Graph 1 shows the enrollment history at the elementary level only. Enrollment was increasing slightly through 2019-20 with a high of 979 students. Coinciding with the pandemic, the following two years saw a combined decrease of 122 students with a rebound of 35 students in 2022-23. Enrollment has remained fairly steady with slight increases since the rebound in 2022-23, but has not returned to pre -pandemic levels. 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Graph 2 shows the enrollment history at the middle school level. Similar to elementary, enrollment was increasing slightly through 2019-20 with a high of 546 students. Coinciding with the pandemic, the 2020-21 school year saw a decrease of 71 students with a rebound of 39 students in 2021-22. Enrollment has remained fairly steady for the past four years. 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 101Page Enrollment Projection Projecting enrollment is a complex endeavor subject to variables and uncertainties. Forecasting typically considers past trends to help predict future trends using a "Cohort Survival" method. The shorter the forecast, the more likely it is that is underlying assumptions and predictions will be accurate. The enrollment fluctuations over the course of the pandemic have made recent enrollment trends less reliable in projecting enrollment. When planning for adequate school facilities, the district uses more inclusive and growth - responsive enrollment projections than those used for budget and funding purposes. These projections account for potential increases in student population and ensure that facility capacity is sufficient to meet both current and future needs. By planning for higher enrollment than conservative funding estimates might suggest, the district can better prevent overcrowding, support evolving instructional programs, and maintain flexibility as the community grows. This forward -thinking approach helps ensure facilities are aligned with actual student needs over time. Table 5 presents a six -year enrollment projection for the Dieringer School District indicating that student enrollment is expected to remain steady, with numbers consistently hovering near or above the district's current maximum facility capacity. This trend suggests that while significant enrollment growth is not anticipated, existing facilities will continue to operate at or near their limits, underscoring the importance of ongoing planning to ensure the district can continue to meet student needs without exceeding available space. School Live .. % of Table 5 - Six Year Enrollment Projection Student Birth Year 2020-21 Year 2025-26 Births 102 Births 110.00% K 112 1 125 2 143 3 169 4 177 5 6 147 183 7 188 8 175 Total Gain/Loss 1,419 9 2021-22 2026-27 116 110.00% 128 120 137 153 169 184 164 194 191 1,439 20 2022-23 2027-28 112 110.00% 123 136 131 147 153 176 205 174 197 1,442 3 2023-24 2028-29 98 110.00% 108 131 149 141 147 159 196 217 177 1,425 (17) 2024-25 2029-30 105 110.00% 116 115 144 160 141 152 177 208 221 1,433 8 2025-26 2030-31 105 110.00% 116 123 126 155 160 146 170 188 212 1,394 (39) 111Page Enrollment Impacts — New Construction The table below provides information on active housing permits within the district, representing residential construction projects that are currently underway or have received approval to begin. These active permits serve as the most immediate and reliable indicator of potential short-term enrollment growth. While there are several larger, planned housing developments under consideration or in earlier stages of the permitting process, their timelines remain uncertain and may not impact enrollment for several years. As these projects progress, the district will continue to monitor their status to assess potential Long- term impacts on facility needs and capacity planning. Table 6 - Housing Development - Active Permits 0520141023 Construct2-story4-bedroom single famity residence 5070200261 Construct1-story3-bedroom single famity residence 5075001490 Construct 2-story4-bedroom single family residence with garage attached via breezeway 5060000110 Construct a 3-story 3-bedroom single family residence 7002030270 Construct3-story5-bedroom single famity residence 8996020390 Construct 2-story 3-bdrm single family residence to replace demolished single family residence 5050200110 Construct 2-story 3-bdrm single family residence to replace demolished house 5070000100 Construct a 2-story, 1-bedroom, single family residence 0520232035 Construct2-story3-bedroom single famity residence 0520055019 Construct 1-story 1-bedroom accessory dwelling unit 8996030650 Construct 2-story3-bedroomsinglef amity residence 0520153023 Construct 2-story4-bedroom single family residence to replace fired am aged/demolished SFR 0520056024 Construct 1-story 3-bedroom single family residence with an attached a 1-storyADU 5070000405 Construct 3-story 3-bedroom single family residence with basement and attached Garage 5075000620 Construct 1-story 3-bdrm single family residence to replace demolished house 5075000410 Construct detached garage with workout area & bathroom & 2nd story 1-bdrm ADU 0520054087 Construct 2-story4-bdrm single family residence 17 Total Active Housing Permits (Single Family Residence) 0 TotalActive Housing Permits (Multi Family Residence) Elementary Student Generation (.3516) 5.9772 Middle School Student Generation (.1080) 1.836 Estimated Enrollment Impact from New Housing Development 7.8132 121Page Projected Enrollment vs School Capacity .•le 7 - Six Year Enrollment and Capacity Projections 2025-26 2026-27* 2027-28* Projected Deficit/ Projected Deficit/ Projected Deficit/ School Site Capacity Enrollment Surplus Enrollment Surplus Enrollment Surplus North Tapps Middle School 2028-29* 2029-30* 2030-31* Projected Deficit/ Projected Deficit/ Projected Deficit/ School Site Capacity Enrollment Surplus Enrollment Surplus Enrollment Surplus *Assumes grade configuration at LTES of grades K,1,2 and grades 3,4,5 at DHES Standard of Service The Standard of service is based on class size and program decisions adopted by the Dieringer School District Board of Directors. At the elementary level, the district plans to maximize the use of state funding available for reducing class sizes to meet the K-3rd grade districtwide class size targets specified by the legislature at 17. Actual class sizes are Larger because the state formula includes specialists (e.g. music and physical education) and a portion of special education teachers in the calculation of districtwide class average. Fourth through sixth grade class size target is 27 and seventh through eighth grade is 28. These class sizes have an impact on facilities, and the permanent capacity of each school reflects these class sizes. In the District, rooms designated and assigned for special use are not counted as capacity classrooms. At the elementary level students are provided music instruction and physical education in non -capacity classrooms. Special education and intervention programs are provided as pullout programs and do not provide capacity. At the middle school level, instruction is organized around a six -period day; classrooms are calculated as providing 5/6 (84%) capacity to accommodate teacher planning time in the instructional space. Student generation rates are based on an average of Sumner -Bonney Lake and Auburn 2025 rates. 131Page Capital Facilities & Financing Plan TABLE 8 -Permanent Capacity Projects 6-Year Total Lake Tapps Elementary 490 490 Dieringer Heights Elementary 520 520 Elementary#3 400 400 400 North Tapps Middle School 545 112 657 112 TOTAL 1,555 512 2,067 TABLE 9 - Capital Finance Capacity Projects Elementary #3 38,177,090 NTMSAddition 3,846,312 Total 42,023,402 Levy/Bond Unrestricted Impact Fees 36,677,090 3,246,312 39,923,402 Non -Capacity Projects NTMS Turf Track, Roof, District HVAC 10,651,802 Building Modernization & Updates 17,193,000 17,193,000 Technology 10,350,000 6,900,000 Total 38,194,802 24,093,000 Total Projects2025-2031 80,218,204 64,016,402 Levy/Bond Unrestricted Impact Fees 1,500,000 600,000 1,500,000 600,000 10,651,802 3,450,000 3,450,000 141Page Impact Fee Calculation Elementary#3 Elementary #3 NTMS Classroom Addition TABLE 10 - Single Family (SFR) and Multi -Family (MFR) Impact Fee Calculation 12 613,107 30,819,806 3,846,312 433 0.3516 0.3011 5,974 5,116 1I 433 0.3516 0.3011 25,026 21,432 112 0.1080 0.1131 3,709 3,884 28,735 25,316 Elementary 375.00 90 0.5069 17,107.88 0.3516 0.3011 6,015 5,151 Middle School 375.00 108 0.5069 20,529.45 0.1080 0.1131 2,217 2,322 Tax Payment Credit 8,232 SFR 7,473 MFR Average Assessed Value 947,500 615,875 Capital Bond Interest Rate 4.30% 4.30% Net Present Value of Average Dwelling 7,571,574 4,921,523 Years Amortized 10 10 2025 Property Tax Levy Rate 1.5600 1.5600 Present Value of Revenue Stream 11,812 7,678 Fee Summary Site Acquisition Costs SFR 5,974 MFR 5,116 Permanent Facility Cost 28,735 25,316 Temporary Facility Cost - - State Match Credit (8,232) (7,473) Tax Payment Credit (11,812) (7,678) Fee Obligation 14,665 15,281 Fee with Discount of 50% 7,333 7,641 Maximum Fee Obligation per Pierce County Code 4A.30.030 8,054 4,545 Final Proposed Impact Fee (Lesser of 50% of Fee Obligation or Pierce County Maximum) 7,333 4,545 151Page ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAC 197-11-960 Environmental Checklist. Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. in most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." In addition, complete the Supplemental Sheet for nonproject actions (part ❑). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "prepares," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable The adoption of a ten-year Capital Facilities Plan by the Dieringer School District. The Comprehensive Plans of Pierce County, City of Auburn and City of Sumner have been and/or will be amended to include the Dieringer School District 2022 Capital Facilities Plan in the Capital Facilities Plan Element of each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. A copy of the District's Plan is available for review in the District Office. 2. Name of applicant: Dieringer School District No. 343 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Dieringer School District No. 343 1320 1781' Ave E. Lake Tapps, WA 98391 Contact Person: Michael Farmer, Superintendent Telephone: (253) 862-2537 4. Date checklist prepared: June 2, 2023. 5. Agency requesting checklist: Dieringer School District No. 343 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The 2023 Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan was adopted on June 20, 2023 and forwarded to Pierce County, Cities of Auburn and Sumner for possible inclusion in each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. The Capital Facilities Plan will be updated annually. Site -specific projects have been or will be subject to project -specific environmental review. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The Capital Facilities Plan reviews the purchase of additional property and the construction of a new elementary school and additional classroom space at the middle school. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The above -referenced projects will undergo environmental review at the time of formal 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. Pierce County and Cities of Auburn and Sumner will review and approve the Capital Facilities Plan for the purposes of impact fee ordinances and will need to adopt the Plan as an amendment to the Capital Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of Pierce County and Cities of Auburn and Sumner. 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 do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) This is a non -project action. This proposal involves the adoption of the Dieringer School District 2023 Capital Facilities Plan for the purpose of planning the facilities needs of the District and for inclusion in the Capital Facilities Plan element and possible amendment of the Comprehensive Plans for Pierce County, City of Auburn and City of Sumner. A copy of the Capital Facilities Plan may be viewed at the Dieringer School District Office. 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. The 2023 Capital Facilities Plan will affect the Dieringer School District. The District includes an area of approximately 5.5 square miles. Portions of the City of Auburn and the City of Sumner, and parts of unincorporated Pierce County, fall within the District's boundaries. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, and more than 2/3 of Lake Tapps. The Dieringer School District is comprised of a variety of topographic land forms and gradients, including all of those listed. Specific topographic characteristics will identified during the planning and permit process for each capital project. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Specific slope characteristics will be identified during the planning and permit process for each capital project. 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. Specific soil types will be identified during the planning and permit process for each capital project. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Unstable soils may exist within the Dieringer School District. Specific soil limitations on individual project sites will be identified at the time of environmental review. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to project specific environmental review and local approval at the time of proposal. Proposed grading projects, as well as the purpose, type, quantity, and source of fill materials will be identified as appropriate to each project. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. It is possible that erosion could occur as a result of construction projects currently proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan. Individual projects and their erosion impacts will be evaluated on a site -specific basis. Individual projects will be subject to environmental review and local approval at the time of proposal. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings?) Percentage of impervious cover with vary with each capital facilities project and will be addressed during project -specific environmental review. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Erosion potential on individual project sites will be addressed during project -specific environmental review. Relevant erosion reduction and control requirements will be met. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (ie., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Various emissions, many construction -related, may result from individual projects. Air -quality impacts will be evaluated during project -specific environmental review. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Off -site sources and necessary mitigation will be addressed during project -specific environmental review. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Plans for individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to environmental review and relevant local approval processes, including obtaining of any necessary air quality permits, at the time individual projects are formally proposed. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 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, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. It appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There is a network of surface water bodies within the Dieringer School District. The surface water regimes and flow patterns have been or will be researched and incorporated in the design of each individual project. 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. Some projects may require work near these described waters. Individual projects in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to environmental review and local approval requirements at the time the project is formally proposed. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that 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. Information with respect to placement or removal of fill or dredge material will be addressed at the time of project -specific environmental review. Applicable local regulations have been or will be satisfied. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Any surface water withdrawals or diversions have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Each capital facilities project, if located in a floodplain area, will be required to meet applicable local regulations for flood areas. b) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Specific information regarding discharges of waste materials, if any, will be addressed during project -specific environmental review. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 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. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may impact ground water resources. Each project will be evaluated during project -specific environmental review. Applicable local regulations have been or will be satisfied. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 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 the following chemicals..; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Impacts of discharged waste material, if any, have been or will be addressed during site -specific, project -level environmental review. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm lvater) 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. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may have varying storm water runoff consequences. Each project will be subject to environmental review and applicable local regulations. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will have varying environmental impacts and will be subject to appropriate review and local regulations prior to construction. Information regarding waste materials will be presented at the time of such review. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Specific measures to reduce or control runoff impacts have been or will be developed on a project -specific basis in cooperation with the appropriate jurisdiction. 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, bulrush, skunk cabbage. Other other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation There are various vegetative zones within the Dieringer School District. An inventory of species has been or will be produced as part of project -specific environmental review. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Impacts on vegetation will be determined at the time of project -specific environmental review at the time the project is formally proposed. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Specific impacts to these species from individual projects has been or be determined at the time of project proposal and will be addressed during site -specific, project -level environmental review. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to environmental review and local approval at the time of project proposal. 5. Animals: a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, perch, crappies, tiger muskies other: An inventory of species observed on or near sites has been or will be developed during project -specific environmental review. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Specific impacts to these species from individual projects will be determined at the time of project proposal and will be reviewed in cooperation with the affected jurisdictions. C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Impacts on migration routes, if any, will addressed during site -specific, project -level environmental review. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Appropriate measures to preserve or enhance wildlife have been or will be determined at the time of site -specific, project -level environmental review. 6. Energy and Natural Resources: a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The State Board of Education requires a life -cycle cost analysis of all heating, lighting, and insulating systems prior to allowing specific projects to proceed. Energy needs will be decided at the time of specific engineering and site design planning. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe: Individual projects of this Capital Facilities Plan will be evaluated as to their impact on the solar potential of adjacent projects during environmental review. 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: Energy conservation measures will be considered at the project -specific design phase and environmental review. 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. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 1) Describe special emergency services that might required. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Proposed projects will comply with all current codes, standards, and rules and regulations. Individual projects have been or will be subject to environmental review and local approval at the time of formal submittal. Noise: 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? A variety of noises exist within the Dieringer School District. Specific noise sources have been or will be identified during project -specific environmental review. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Normal construction noises would exist on a short-term basis during school construction. There could be an increase in traffic or operations -related noise which would be addressed during project specific environmental review. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Project noise impacts have been or will be evaluated and mitigated during the project -specific environmental review. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local regulations. 8. Land and Shoreline Use: a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? There are a variety of land uses within the Dieringer School District, including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, utility, agricultural, forestry, open space, recreational, etc. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. This question will be addressed during site -specific, project -level environmental review. C. Describe any structures on the site. Structures located on proposed sites have been or will be identified and described during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Structures to be demolished, if any, will be identified as part of the project -specific environmental review process. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? There are a variety of zoning classifications within the Dieringer School District. Site specific zoning information has been or will be identified during project -specific environmental review. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? An inventory of comprehensive plan designations has been or will be completed during project -specific environmental review. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Any shoreline master program designations have been or will be identified during project -specific environmental review. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Environmentally sensitive areas, if any, will be identified during project -specific environmental review. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? This information has been or will be provided at the time of project -specific environmental review. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? It is not anticipated that proposed projects will displace any people. Displacement of people, if any, will be evaluated during project -specific environmental review. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to project specific environmental review and local approval at the time the project is formally proposed. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Compatibility of the proposal and specific projects with existing uses and plans have been or will be assessed as part of the comprehensive planning process and during project -specific environmental review. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No housing units would be provided. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Any impact of project proposals on existing housing have been or would be evaluated during project -specific environmental review procedures. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Measures to reduce or control any housing impacts have been or will be addressed during site -specific, project -level environmental review. 10. Aesthetics: a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Aesthetic impacts have been or will be determined at the time of site -specific, project -level environmental review. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Aesthetic impacts have been or will be determined at the time of site -specific, project -level environmental review. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Appropriate measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts have been or will be determined at the time of project -specific environmental review. 11. Light and Glare: a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light or glare impacts have been or will be determined at the time of project -specific environmental review. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Light or glare impacts have been or will be determined at the time of the project - specific environmental review. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Off -site sources of light or glare have been or will be evaluated at the time of project specific environmental review. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Mitigation of light and glare impacts have been or will be addressed during project specific environmental review. 12. Recreation: a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are a variety of formal and informal recreational facilities within the Dieringer School District. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Recreational impacts have been or will be addressed during project specific environmental review. Projects in the Capital Facilities Plan may enhance recreational opportunities and uses. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Any adverse effects on recreation stemming from individual project proposals have been or will be subject to mitigation during the environmental review procedure. A school site usually provides recreational facilities to the community in the form of additional play fields and gymnasiums. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation: a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. The existence of historic and cultural resources will be determined at the time of project -specific environmental review. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. An inventory of historical sites has been or will be conducted as part of project specific environmental review. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed on a project -specific basis. 14. Transportation: a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Impact on public streets and highways has been or will be assessed during project specific environmental review. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The relationship between specific projects and public transit has been or will be assessed during project -specific environmental review. C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? An inventory of parking spaces and the impacts of specific projects on parking spaces has been or will be conducted during project -specific environmental review. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The development of new schools may require new access roads or streets. This issue will be fully addressed during project -specific environmental review. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Use of water, rail or air transportation has been or will be addressed during site specific, project -level environmental review. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Each project proposal has been or will be separately evaluated as to traffic impacts. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Mitigation of impacts on transportation has been or will be addressed during project specific environmental review. 15. Public Services: a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so generally describe. The District does not anticipate that the projects identified in the Capital Facilities Plan will substantially increase the need for other public services. Impacts have been or will be evaluated on a project -specific basis. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Schools are built with automatic security systems, fire alarms, smoke alarms, heat sensors and sprinkler systems. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Utilities available at project sites have been or will be identified during project specific environmental review. b. 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. Utility revisions and construction needs will be identified during project -specific environmental review. C. 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. Signature: Michael Farmer Date Submitted: June 2, 2023 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? To the extent this Plan makes it more likely that school facilities will be constructed, and/or renovated or remodeled, some of these environmental impacts will be more likely. Additional impermeable surfaces, such as roofs, parking lots, sidewalks, access roads and playgrounds will increase storm water runoff, which could enter surface or ground water. Emissions to air could result from heating systems, emergency generators and other equipment, and from additional car and bus trips to and from the school for students and faculty. Any emissions resulting from this Plan should not require the production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances, with the possible exception of storage of diesel fuel or gasoline for emergency generating equipment. Noise may result from additional traffic and from concentrating several hundred children at a new facility, especially before and after school and during recesses. To the extent this proposal allows additional residential development to occur, these impacts would also increase somewhat, but it is not possible to quantify those impacts at this time. The impacts would depend on the type, location and distribution of housing, for example, whether single or multiple family and the location of the school. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Facilities implementing the Plan have been or will be evaluated at the project specific level and impacts will be mitigated accordingly. Storm water detention and runoff will meet applicable County and/or City requirements and, depending on the date of actual construction, may be subject to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permitting requirements. Discharges to air will be minimal, and will meet any applicable requirements of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority. Fuel oil will be stored according to local and state requirements. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The Plan itself will have no impact on these elements of the environment. Depending on the particular site, construction of facilities may require clearing sites of plants and loss of animal habitat. To the extent residential development is allowed, additional area may be cleared and eliminated as habitat for animals. There are not likely to be any impacts on fish or marine life, although some water quality degradation in streams and rivers could occur due to increased residential development. These impacts have been or will be addressed in more detail during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Individual projects will be evaluated and mitigated appropriately on a project -specific basis, but specific mitigation proposals cannot be identified at this time. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Any actual projects resulting from this Plan would consume heating fuel and electrical energy. Increased traffic resulting from the construction of additional facilities would consume petroleum based fuels, Reduced traffic resulting from construction of another neighborhood school may also reduce amounts of fuel consumed, but it is not possible to quantify such reduction in consumption at this time. These impacts have been or will be addressed in more detail during project - specific environmental review when appropriate. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Facilities would be constructed in accordance with applicable energy efficiency standards. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodpiains, or prime farmlands? The Plan and facilities constructed pursuant to the Plan should have no impact on these resources. It is not possible to predict whether other development made possible by this Plan would affect sensitive areas. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: No specific measures are being proposed at this time. Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed during project -specific review. Annual updates of this Plan will be coordinated with Pierce County, City of Auburn and City of Sumner as part of the Growth Management Act process, one of the purposes of which is to protect environmentally sensitive areas. To the extent the School District's facilities planning process is part of the overall growth management planning process, these resources are more likely to be protected. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The Plan will not have any impact on land or shoreline use that is incompatible existing comprehensive plans, land use codes, or shoreline management plans. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: None are proposed at this time. Actual facilities constructed to implement the Plan will be sited and constructed to avoid or reduce land use impacts. & How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? This proposal should not create substantial new demands for transportation. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may create an increase in traffic near new District facilities but also reduce traffic by creating the opportunity for more students to walk to a closer school. The construction of the facilities included in the Capital Facilities Plan may result in minor increases in the demand for public services and utilities, such as fire and police protection, and water, sewer, and electric utilities. None of these impacts are likely to be significant. The impacts on transportation and public services and utilities of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be addressed during project -level review when appropriate. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: No measures to reduce or respond to such demands are proposed at this time. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan will not conflict with any laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. P/T O. 3 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Each Scholar: A voice. A dream. A BRIGHT future. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2026 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN May 12, 2025 BOARD OF EDUCATION Dr. Jennifer Jones, President Trudy Davis, Vice President Luckisha Phillips, Legislative Representative Quentin Morris, WIAA Representative Joan Marie Murphy, Board Director SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Dani Pfeiffer Prepared by: Rob Bryant, Chief Finance & Operations Officer Michael Swartz, Executive Director of Capital Projects Jennifer Thomas, Student & Demographic Forecaster 2 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 2-3 SECTION 1 THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Introduction 4 Inventory of Educational Facilities 5 Inventory of Non -Instructional Facilities 6 Needs Forecast - Existing Facilities 7 Needs Forecast - New Facilities 8 Six Year Finance Plan 9 Ten Year Bond/Capital Activity Summary 10 SECTION 2 MAPS Introduction 11 Map — City and County Jurisdictions 12 SECTION 3 SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Introduction 13 Building Capacities 14-16 Portable Locations 16-17 Student Forecast 18-20 SECTION 4 KING COUNTY, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, AND CITY OF KENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Introduction 21 Capacity Summaries 22-26 Impact Fee Calculation 27-28 Student Generation Rates 29 Changes Summary from 2025 to 2026 30 1 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN INTRODUCTION In response to the requirements of the State of Washington Growth Management Act (SHB) 2929 (1990) and ESHB 1025 (1991)), and under the School Impact Fee Ordinances of King County Code 21A, City of Federal Way Ordinance No. 95-249 effective December 21, 1995 as amended, City of Kent Ordinance No.4278 effective June 2018, revised December 2021, and the City of Auburn Ordinance No. 5078 effective 1998, Federal Way Public Schools has updated its Capital Facilities Plan as of May 2025. This plan will be submitted for consideration to each of the jurisdictions located within the Federal Way Public Schools' service area: King County, the City of Kent, City of Federal Way, and the City of Auburn and is incorporated in the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction by reference. This plan is requested to be included in the Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction. To date, the City of Des Moines has not adopted a school impact fee ordinance. The City of Des Moines collects school mitigation fees as part of the SEPA process. Discussions with the City of Milton to adopt an ordinance for school impact fees for parcels located within the Federal Way School District's service area is in process. The Growth Management Act requires the County to designate Urban Growth areas within which urban growth can be encouraged. The Growth Management Planning Council adopted and recommended to the King County Council Urban Growth Area Line Maps with designations for urban centers. A designation was made within the Federal Way planning area, which encompasses Federal Way Public Schools boundaries. King County will encourage and actively support the development of Urban Centers to meet the region's need for housing, jobs, services, culture, and recreation. This Plan's estimated population growth is prepared with this underlying assumption. This Capital Facilities Plan will be used as documentation for any jurisdiction which requires its use to meet the needs of the Growth Management Act. This plan is not intended to be the sole planning tool for all of the District needs. The District may prepare interim plans consistent with Board policies or management need. Currently Federal Way Public Schools is nearing the end of Phase 2 Bond projects supporting school expansion and replacement as authorized by the voters in 2017. Prior to the passage of the Phase 2 Bond the District formed a 100-member Facilities Planning Committee consisting of parents, community members and staff. This Committee was tasked with developing a recommendation to the Superintendent regarding Phase 2 of the District's plan for school construction, remodeling, and/or modernization for voter consideration in November 2017. The voters passed this $450M bond authorization with a 62% YES vote reflecting a commitment to invest in the modernization of our infrastructure. As of today, the District has completed Thomas Jefferson High School, Evergreen Middle School, Lake Grove Elementary, Mirror Lake Elementary, Star Lake Elementary, Wildwood Elementary, Olympic View K-8 and Memorial Field. Illahee Middle School is currently about 95% complete and will be ready to move in once school is out in June 2025. 2 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN INTRODUCTION, continued The rebuilding of the schools has and will continue to create additional capacity for students at the elementary and high school levels. The District continues to monitor factors that may have an impact on enrollment and capacity at our schools, including new single-family and multi -family residential developments and any impacts due to the COVID-19. In accordance with the McCleary decision, the State has provided funding to reduce K-3 class size to 17 and 4-12 class size to 25. Beginning in 2019-20 the legislature expected compliance with this funding adding pressure to the need for elementary capacity. In response to this need the district has acquired a commercial building to renovate into classrooms to provide permanent additional capacity. The COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected brick and mortar enrollment in recent years, as well as increased enrollment in the Internet Academy. However, the District's 2022-23 enrollment was higher than projected. We have seen similar growth in the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 school years, although we have not yet reached our Pre-Covid enrollment numbers. We are anticipating continued enrollment growth, especially considering the City of Federal Way's plans to increase housing in the downtown core in conjunction with Sound Transit's Link Light Rail development. The District has increased capacity at the elementary level over the past several years and shows no unhoused scholars based on the six -year enrollment projections (even with projected growth at that level). The 2026 Capital Facilities Plan shows fairly flat enrollment; however, we will monitor and adjust accordingly our projections yearly based on new housing developments currently being proposed to open in 2027 and beyond. 3 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SECTION 1 - THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN The State Growth Management Act requires that several pieces of information be gathered to determine the facilities available and needed to meet the needs of a growing community. This section provides information about current facilities, existing facility needs, and expected future facility requirements for Federal Way Public Schools. A Financial Plan that shows expected funding for any new construction, portables and modernization listed follows this. Cd FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN INVENTORY OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (K-5) Adelaide 1635 SW 3041h St Federal Way 98023 Brigadoon 3601 SW 3361h St Federal Way 98023 Camelot 4041 S 298th St Auburn 98001 Enterprise 35101 5th Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Green Gables 32607 47th Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Lake Dolloff 4200 S 308th St Auburn 98001 Lake Grove 303 SW 308th St Federal Way 98023 Lakeland 35827 32' Ave S Auburn 98001 Mark Twain 2450 S Star Lake Rd Federal Way 98003 Meredith Hill 5830 S 300th St Auburn 98001 Mirror Lake 625 S 314th St Federal Way 98003 Nautilus (K-8) 1000 S 289th St Federal Way 98003 Olympic View (K-8) 2626 SW 327th St Federal Way 98023 Panther Lake 34424 lst Ave S Federal Way 98003 Rainier View 3015 S 368th St Federal Way 98003 Sherwood Forest 34600 12th Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Silver Lake 1310 SW 325th PI Federal Way 98023 Star Lake 26812 40' Ave S, B1dg.B Kent 98032 Sunnycrest 24629 42' Ave S Kent 98032 Twin Lakes 4400 SW 320th St Federal Way 98023 Valhalla 27847 42nd Ave S Auburn 98001 Wildwood 2405 S 300th St Federal Way 98003 Woodmont (K-8) 26454 16th Ave S Des Moines 98198 MIDDLE SCHOOLS (6-8) Federal Way Public Academy (6-10) 34620 9th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Illahee 36001 lst Ave S Federal Way 98003 Kilo 4400 S 308th St Auburn 98001 Lakota 1415 SW 314th St Federal Way 98023 Sacajawea 1101 S Dash Point Rd Federal Way 98003 Sequoyah 3450 S 360th ST Auburn 98001 Evergreen 26812 40th Ave S, B1dg.A Kent 98032 TAF @ Saghalie (6-12) 33914 19th Ave SW Federal Way 98023 HIGH SCHOOLS (9-12) Decatur 2800 SW 320th St Federal Way 98023 Federal Way 30611 16th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Thomas Jefferson 4248 S 288th St Auburn 98001 Todd Beamer 35999 16th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Career Academy at Truman 31455 28th Ave S Federal Way 98003 ADDITIONAL SCHOOLS Internet Academy (K-12) 31455 28th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Employment Transition Program (12+) 33250 21st Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Federal Way Open Doors 31455 28th Ave S Federal Way 98003 ES24 (Former DeVry Property) (K-8) 3600 S 344th Way Federal Way 98001 ECEAP (Former Headstart Bldg) 31457 28th Ave S Federal Way 98003 61 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CURRENT INVENTORY NON -INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITIES Developed Property Central Kitchen 1214 S 332nd St Federal Way 98003 Federal Way Memorial Field 1300 S 308th St Federal Way 98003 Educational Services Center 33330 8th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Support Services Center 1211 S 332nd St Federal Way 98003 Leased Property Early Learning Center at Uptown 1066 S 320th St Federal Way 98003 Square Undeveloped Property Site Location 75 SW 360th Street & 3rd Avenue SW — 9.2 Acres 65 S 351st Street & 52nd Avenue S — 8.8 Acres 60 E of loth Avenue SW - SW 334th & SW 335th Streets - 10.04 Acres 73 N of SW 320th and east of 45th PL SW — 23.45 Acres 71 S 344th Street & 46th Avenue S - 17.47 Acres 82 1st Way S and S 342nd St — Minimal acreage 96 S 308th St and 14th Ave S — .36 Acres Notes: Not all undeveloped properties are large enough to meet school construction requirements. Properties may be traded or sold depending on what locations are needed to house students in the District. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN NEEDS FORECAST - EXISTING FACILITIES PHASE EXISTING FACILITY FUTURE NEEDS ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF FUNDS As Purchase and Relocate Interim Capacity Anticipated source of funds is needed Portables Impact Fees. II Thomas Jefferson High Replaced Existing Building, Voter Approved Capital bond School Increased Capacity II Illahee Middle School Replace Existing Building Voter Approved Capital bond II Evergreen Middle School Replaced Existing Building Voter Approved Capital bond II Lake Grove Elementary Replaced Existing Building, Voter Approved Capital bond Increased Capacity II Mirror Lake Elementary Replaced Existing Building, Voter Approved Capital bond Increased Capacity II Olympic View K-8 School Replaced Existing Building, Voter Approved Capital bond Increased Capacity II Star Lake Elementary Replaced Existing Building, Voter Approved Capital bond Increased Capacity II Wildwood Elementary Replaced Existing Building, Voter Approved Capital bond Increase Capacity II Memorial Stadium Replaced Existing Facility Voter Approved Capital bond II ES24 (DeVry Property) Temp Swing School SCAP and K-3 Class size Increase Capacity reduction fundin III Mark Twain Elementary Replace Existing Building, TBD Increase Capacity III Decatur High School Replace Existing Building, TBD Increase Capacity III Kilo Middle School Replace Existing Building TBD III Sacajawea Middle School Replace Existing Building TBD III Adelaide Elementary Replace Existing Building, TBD Increase Capacity III Brigadoon Elementary Replace Existing Building, TBD Increase Capity III Camelot Elementary Replace Existing Building, TBD Increase Capacity III Lake Dolloff Elementary Replace Existing Building, TBD Increase Capity III Nautilus K-8 School Replace Existing Building, TBD Increase Capacity III Twin Lakes Elementary Replace Existing Building, TBD Increase Capacity III Woodmont K-8 School Replace Existing Building, TBD Increase Capity FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN NEEDS FORECAST - ADDITIONAL FACILITIES NEW FACILITY I LOCATION I ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF FUNDS FWPS has leased a portion of the Truman Campus property to Region X and Puget Sound Education Service District. Region X and PSESD built a Head Start building on this property which has served Federal Way 3- and 4-year-olds for the last twenty years. In the recent re - competition, the federal funding for a Head Start program at this location was lost. Subsequently the District has been using this facility for a state -funded Early Childhood Education (ECEAP) program and has secured the title to the building. The building will only be available for preschool activities. E:3 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Secured Funding Projected Revenue Actual and Planned Expenditures SIX YEAR FINANCE PLAN Sources Impact Fees 1 $196,285 Land Sale Funds (2) $6,114,000 Bond or Levy Funds 3 $11,014,000 K3-Class Size Reduction 4 $5,064,000 School Construction Assistance Pro ram(SCAP) (5) $25,533,000 11 TOTAL $47L21,285JI Sources School Construction Assistance Program(SCAP) (6) $18,827,000 K-3 Class Size Reduction 7 $0 Bond Funds 8 $0 Land Fund Sales (9) $0 Impact Fees 10 $0 TOTAL 1IL827,"""JI Total Secured --ling and Projected Revenue $66,748,255 NEW SCHOOLS Fstlmatedand Budget 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Total Cost Prior Years 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 2029-2030 2030-2031 2031-2032 2025-2032 MODERNIZATION AND EXPANSION Lake Grove Elementary (11) $39,780,000 $0 $39,780,000 Minor Lake Elementary (11) $42,200,000 $0 $42,200,000 Star Lake Elementary (11) $39,623,000 $0 $39,623,000 Wildwood Elementary (11) $41,290,000 $0 $41,290,000 Olympic View K-8 School (11) $46,350,000 $0 $46,350,000 Thomas Jefferson High School (11) $122,938,000 $1,790,000 $1,790,000 $124,728,000 Evergreen Middle School (11) $65,688,000 $0 $65,688,000 IOabee Middle School (11) $69,022,000 $19,851,000 $19,851,000 $88,873,000 Memorial Stadium (11) $29,772,000 $178,000 $178,000 $29,950,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 SITEACQUISMON Former DeVry/ES 24 (12) $30,314,000 $1,422,000 $1,424,000 $1,422,000 $1,423,000 S5,691,000 $36,005,000 TENPORARYFACudTIES Portables 13 $3,500,000 $500,000 $500,0001 $500,000 $SOQ000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $3,500,000 $7,000,000 TOTAL 0,4 $5377,000 $23,741,000 $1,924,000 $1,922,000 $1,923,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $31,010,000 $561,487,000 NOTES: 1. These fees are currently being held in a King County, City of Federal Way, City of Aubum, and City of Kent impact fee account, and will be available for use by the District for system improvements. This is year end balance on 12/31/24. 2. This is year end balance on 12/31/24. 3. This is the 12/31/24 balance of bond funds and capital levy funds. This figure includes interest earnings. 4. This represents the K3-CSR revnue received but not spent as of 12/31/2024. 5. This represents the balance of SCAP funding but no spent as of 12/31/2024. 6. This is anticipated SCAP for the future projects authorized by the voters in 2017. 7. This is the remaining K-3 Class size reduction grant revenue. 8. In November 2017, the District passed a $450M bond measure. All bonds authorized have been issued. 9. There are no projected sale of surplus properties. 10. In this current plan, there are no projected impact fees. 11. Project budgets are updated as of December 2024. 12. A former private university campus located in Federal Way was purchased in 2019 to provide up to 43 additional permanent elementary classrooms. Prior to creatingnew permanent capcity this location will be used as a temporary housing These costs are excluded from impact fee calculations. 13. These fees represent the cost of purchasing and installing new portables. The portable expenditure in future years may replace emting p ortables that are not functional. These may not increase capacity and are not included in the capacity summary. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TEN-YEAR BOND/CAPTIAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY Year Dollars Budgeted Items Budgeted 2024 $78,050,000.00 Illahee MS, Thomas Jefferson HS, Memorial Stadium, Former DeVry/ES24, Portables 2023 $55,743,000.00 Illahee MS, Memorial Stadium, Former DeVry/ES24, Portables 2022 $87,237,500.00 Olympic View K-8, Thomas Jefferson HS, Illahee MS, Former DeVry/ES 24, Portables 2021 $69,823,750.00 Star Lake ES, Olympic View K-8, Thomas Jefferson HS, Evergreen MS, Illahee MS, Former DeVry ES/ES24, Portables 2020 $132,038,500.00 Lake Grove ES, Mirror Lake ES, Star Lake ES, Wildwood ES, Thomas Jefferson HS, Evergreen MS, Former DeVry/ES24 Lake Grove ES, Mirror Lake ES, Star Lake ES, Wildwood ES, Thomas 2019 $116,740,000.00 Jefferson HS, Evergreen MS, Former DeVry/ES24, Norman Center, Portables 2018 $11,935,000.00 Lake Grove ES, Mirror Lake ES, Wildwood ES, Thomas Jefferson HS, Norman Center, Portables 2017 $75,625,000.00 Federal Way HS, Lake Grove ES, Mirror Lake ES, Star Lake ES, Wildwood ES, Norman Center, Portables 2016 $30,420,000.00 j Federal Way HS, Norman Center, Portables 2015 $47,81500.00 1 Federal Way HS, Norman Center, Portables 10 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SECTION 2 - MAPS As of September 2024, Federal Way Public Schools has twenty elementary schools (grades K- 5), three schools with a K-8 grade configuration, six middle school schools (grades 6-8), four high schools (grades 9-12) and four small secondary schools. The Federal Way Public Academy serves students in grades 6-10. The programs at Open Doors and Career Academy at Truman High School serve students in grades 9-12. In addition to these programs, TAF@Saghalie serves students in grades 6-12 who reside within the service area and the Employment and Transition Program (ETP) at the Norman Center serves 18-21-year-old scholars. The Growth Management Act requires that a jurisdiction evaluate if the public facility infrastructure is in place to handle new housing developments. In the case of most public facilities, new developments have major impacts on the facilities immediately adjacent to that development. School districts are different. If the district does not have permanent facilities available, interim measures must be taken until new facilities can be built or until boundaries can be adjusted to match the population changes to the surrounding facilities. It is important to realize that a single housing development does not require the construction of a complete school facility. School districts are required to project growth throughout the district and build or adjust boundaries based on growth throughout the district, not just around a single development. Adjusting boundaries requires careful consideration by the district and is not taken lightly. It is recognized that there is a potential impact on students who are required to change schools. Boundary adjustments impact the whole district, not just one school. The final map included represents the city and county boundaries which overlap with the district's service areas. • City of Algona • City of Auburn • City of Des Moines • City of Federal Way • City of Kent • City of Milton • Unincorporated King County 11 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN no MAP - CITY AND COUNTY JURISDICTIONS FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Each Scholar! A voice_ A dfeam. A BRIGHT future. Puge! Sound 0 0.5 1 2 Wes F, r Des Moiries P. t recleraI UUay b _f ' AlQona ;; King r Count I ,6F P. � I L _I r � Kent F 5 k Aub4irn � F hAiltoa7 City and County Jurisdictions FWPS boundaries is 100% Urban Growth Area 12 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SECTION 3 - SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Building Capacities - The Education Program Portable Locations Student Forecast — 2026 through 2032 13 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN BUILDING CAPACITIES This Capital Facilities Plan establishes the District's "standard of service" in order to ascertain the District's current and future capacity. The Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, but these guidelines do not take into consideration the education program needs. In general, the District's current target class size provides that the average class size for a standard classroom for grades K through 3 should be 17 students to comply with current legislation. In grades 4-5 the target is 25 students. For grades 6 to 12 the target class size is 26 students. Classrooms for students with Individualized Education Program (Special Education) needs are calculated at 12 seats per classroom. Historically, the District has used the OSPI square footage calculation as a baseline for capacity calculation and made adjustments for specific program needs. The District will continue to use this calculation for determining capacity at our middle and high schools. However, for elementary school capacity will be calculated based on the number of classroom spaces and the number of students assigned to each classroom. Class Size Guidelines FWPS Historical "Standard of Service" HB2661/SHB2776 Enacted Law Square Footage Guideline Kindergarten 18.9 17 25-28 Grades 1-2 18.9 17 25-28 Grade 3 18.9 17 28 Grades 4-5 25 25 28 Grades 6-12 26 26 28 For the purposes of determining student capacity at individual schools, the following list clarifies adjustments to classroom spaces and the OSPI calculation. Special Education Resource Rooms: Each middle school requires the use of a standard classroom(s) for special education students requiring instruction to address specific disabilities. English as a Second Language Programs: Each middle school and high school require the use of a standard classroom for students learning English as a second language. Middle School Computer Labs: Each middle school has computer labs, except Evergreen Middle School. Wireless access has been installed at all secondary schools. If additional classroom space is needed, these computer labs may be converted to mobile carts. 14 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN BUILDING CAPACITIES, continued High School Career Development and Learning Center (Resource) Room: Each high school provides special education resource room and career development classrooms for students requiring instruction to address specific disabilities. Preschool/ECEAP: Our district currently offers preschool programs for both special needs & typically developing students at 9 elementary schools. We also have the ECEAP program at 10 sites (6 elementary schools, 3 high schools, and 1 commercial site). These programs decrease capacity at those schools. Alternative Learning Experience: Federal Way offers students the opportunity to participate in an Alternative Learning Experience through our Internet Academy. These students have never been included in the capacity calculation of unhoused students. 1418 Youth Reengagement: Federal Way offers students the opportunity to participate in 1418 Youth Reengagement Open Doors program. These students are housed at the Truman campus but are not currently included in the capacity calculation of unhoused students. 15 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN BUILDING CAPACITIES, continued ELENM'4TARY BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITY School Name Headcount 'Preschool Adelaide 392 30 Bri adoon 408 30 Camelot 378 30 Enterprise 524 15 Green Gables 439 Lake Dolloff 535 Lake Grove 558 30 Lakeland 455 Mark Twain 515 Meredith Hill 606 15 Mirror Lake 514 30 Nautilus -8 512 Olympic View (K-8) 429 Panther Lake 501 15 Rainier View 607 30 Sherwood Forest 451 6 Silver Lake 476 Star Lake 544 30 Surm crest 636 Twin Lakes 413 30 Valhalla 598 Wildwood 597 30 Woodmont -8 474 TOTAL 11,562 1 321 MIDDLE SCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITY School Name Headcount Illahee 855 Kilo 779 Lakota 786 Saca'awea 694 Se uo ah 585 Evergreen 795 TAF @ Saghalie 598 Federal Way Public Academy 183 TOTAL 5,275 *Mddle School Awrage 727 HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITY School Name Headcount Decatur 1243 Federal Way 1684 Thomas Jefferson 1600 Todd Beamer 1085 TAF @ Sa halie 155 Career Academy at Truman 159 Federal Way Public Academy 116 Employment Transition Program 48 TOTAL 6 090 Dementar Awra a 503 ZHigh School Average 1,403 Notes: 'Preschool enrollment reduces capacity for K-5 students. 15 preschool students in one classroom. 2Federal Way Public Academy, Career Academy at Truman High School, and Employment Transition Program and TAF @ Saghalie for the high school school grade span (9-12) are non -boundary schools. These schools are not used in the calculated averages. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PORTABLE LOCATIONS The Washington State Constitution requires the State to provide each student a basic education. It is not an efficient use of District resources to build a school with a capacity for 500 students due to lack of space for 25 students when enrollment fluctuates throughout the year and from year to year. Portables are used as interim measures to house students when increasing population impacts a school attendance area. Portables may also be required to house students when new or changing programs require additional capacity. They also provide housing for students until permanent facilities can be financed and constructed. When permanent facilities become available, the portable(s) is either used for other purposes such as storage or childcare programs or moved to another school for an interim classroom. Some portables may not be fit to move due to age or physical condition. In these cases, the District may choose to buy new portables and surplus these unfit portables. With the school expansion projects funded through the 2017 Bond, new capacity has been created within the new schools and portables have been eliminated from these campuses. The following page provides a list of the location of the portable facilities used for educational facilities by Federal Way Public Schools. 17 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PORTABLE LOCATIONS, continued PORTABLES LOCATED AT ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS INSTRUCTIONAL NON INSTRUCTIONAL* Adelaide 1 2 Bri adoon 1 Camelot 1 Enterprise 3 Green Gables 1 Lake Dolloff 5 1 Lake Grove Lakeland Mark Twain 3 Meredith Hill 3 Mirror Lake Nautilus 3 Olympic View Panther Lake 4 Rainier View 5 Sherwood Forest 2 2 Silver Lake 1 3 Star Lake Surm crest 6 Twin Lakes 1 2 Valhalla 4 Wildwood Woodmont 3 TOTAL 47 10 PORTABLES LOCATED AT MIDDLE SCHOOLS INSTRUCTIONAL NON INSTRUCTIONAL Illahee Kilo 1 6 Lakota Sacajawea 5 Se uo ah 2 Evergreen TAF Sa halie 4 TOTAL 1 10 1 8 PORTABLES LOCATED AT HIGH SCHOOLS INSTRUCTIONAL NON INSTRUCTIONAL Decatur 8 Federal Way Thomas Jefferson Todd Beamer 8 TOTAL 16 PORTABLES LOCATED AT SUPPORT FACILITIES MOT TDC 9 Former TAFA TOTAL 9 DISTRICT PORTABLES IN USE FOR ECEAP AND/OR HEADSTART Sherwood Forest 2 Evergreen Total 2 W:3 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN STUDENT FORECAST Student enrollment projections are a basic component of budget development and facility need. Enrollment projections influence many of the financial estimates that go into budget preparation. The majority of staffing requirements are derived directly from the forecasted number of students. Allocations for instructional supplies and materials are also made based on projected enrollment. Other expenditures and certain revenue projections are directly related to enrollment projections. Enrollment projections are completed annually in the Business Services Department. Projections must be detailed at various levels, district total, school -building totals, grade level and program level to include vocational and special education students. The basis of projections has been cohort survival analysis. Cohort survival is the analysis of a group that has a common statistical value (grade level) as it progresses through time. In a stable population the cohort would be 1.00 for all grades. This analysis uses historical information to develop averages and project the averages forward. This method does not trace individual students; it is concerned with aggregate numbers in each grade level. The district has used this method with varying years of history and weighted factors to study several projections. Because transfers in and out of the school system are common, student migration is factored into the analysis as it increases or decreases survival rates. Entry grades (kindergarten) are a unique problem in cohort analysis. The district collects information on birth rates within the district's census tracts and treats these statistics as a cohort for kindergarten enrollment in the appropriate years. The Federal Way School District is using various statistical methods for projecting student enrollments. The resultant forecasted enrollments are evaluated below. In February 2025, the District contracted a demographer to develop projections for the Federal Way School District. The model used to forecast next year's enrollment uses cohort survival rates to measure grade to grade growth, assumes market share losses to private schools (consistent with county -wide average), assumes growth from new housing or losses due to net losses from migration. This forecast was provided as a range of three projections. The long-range forecast provided with this report used a model with cohort survival rates and growth rates based on projected changes in the 5-19 age group for King County. The difference between projected enrollment and actual for Fall 2024 was less than 1% in the positive with 20,690 projected and 21,148 actual. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN STUDENT FORECAST, CON'T October 1 Head Fount Enrollment History and Projections Percent Calendar• Yr• School Year I Hementary Middle School High School Total K -12 Change 2019 2019-20 9.953 5,309 6.516 21,778 2020 2020-21 9.192 4,990 6,385 20,567 2021 2021-22 9.062 4,850 6,393 20.305 2022 2022-23 9.317 4,719 6,532 20.568 2023 2023-24 9.461 4,714 6,521 20.696 2024 2024-25 9.612 4,893 6,643 21.148 2025 B2025-26 9,618 4,794 6,558 20,970 2026 P2026-27 9,628 4,799 6,565 20,991 2027 P2027-28 9,637 4,804 6,571 21,012 2028 P2028-29 9,647 4,808 6,578 21,033 2029 P2029-30 9,657 4,813 6,584 21,054 2030 P2030-31 9,666 4,818 6,591 21,075 2031 P2031-32 9,676 4,823 6,597 21,096 Elementary K 5 Middle School 6-8 High School 942 Includes Open Doors and IrrternetAcademy IFxcludes Preschool and Full-time Running Start 25,000 22,500 20,000 17,500 15,000 u ra = 12,500 t 10,000 u Ln 7,500 5,000 2,500 0 Enrollment History and Six Year Forecast 0�1p OHO 0 �1 a`'r? O�s� 0�'� P �pr� apr� a�PI a�PI 10 S 6' rP 9 D s0 PIP P9 Z�l School Year: Actual■ Budgeted■ Projected -5.6% -1.3% 1.3% 0.6% 2.2% -0.8% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% K11 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN STUDENT FORECAST, continued Most of the methods used for long range enrollment reporting assume that enrollment is a constant percent of something else (e.g. population) or that enrollment will mirror some projected trend for the school -age population over time. The report included 5 different calculations to provide a range of possible projections for the District to the year 2034. This model produces a projection that is between 20,933 to 23,730 when applied to the low, medium, and high range modes. This provides a reasonable range for long-range planning and is consistent with estimates from various models. Long-range projections that establish the need for facilities are a modification of the cohort survival method. The cohort method of analysis becomes less reliable the farther out the projections are made. The Federal Way School District long-range projections are studied annually. The study includes information from the jurisdictional demographers as they project future housing and population in the region. The long-range projections used by Federal Way Public Schools reflect a similar age trend in student populations as the projections published by the Office of Financial Management for the State of Washington. Near term projections assume some growth from new housing, which is offset by current local economic conditions. The District tracks new development from five permitting jurisdictions. Long range planning assumes a student yield from proposed new housing consistent with historical growth patterns. Growth Management requires jurisdictions to plan for a minimum of twenty years. The Federal Way School District is a partner in this planning with the various jurisdictions comprising the school district geography. These projections create a vision of the school district community in the future. The COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected brick and mortar enrollment in recent years, as well as increased enrollment in the Internet Academy. As we move farther away from the effects of COVID-19, we hope to see continued enrollment growth, especially considering the City of Federal Way's plans to increase housing in the down -town core in conjunction with Sound Transit's Link Light Rail development. 21 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SECTION 4 — KING COUNTY, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, AND CITY OF KENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Capacity Summaries Site & Construction Costs Allocations Student Generation Rates Impact Fee Calculations Reference to Impact Fee Calculations 22 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPACITY SUMMARIES All Grades, Elementary, Middle School, and High Schools The Capacity Summaries combine Building Capacity information, Portable Capacity information and the Student Forecast information. The result demonstrates the requirements for new or remodeled facilities and why there is a need for the District to use temporary facilities or interim measures. The District has recently adjusted its capacity calculation method for Elementary schools to better show capacity needed to comply with the K-3 Class Size Reduction. This adjustment is also shown in the portable capacity calculation. In order to allow for flexibility in portable usage the District will use an average class size calculation of 21 for each Elementary portable and an average class size of 25 for each Middle and High School portable. The information is organized with a page summarizing the entire District, and then evaluating capacity vs. number of students at elementary, middle school, and high school levels individually. The notes at the bottom of each spreadsheet provide information about what facilities are in place each year. 23 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPACITY SUMMARIES, Continued Capacity Summary - All Grades CAPACITY Actual Budget - - Projected - - CalendarYear 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 SchoolYear 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 BUILDING PROGRAM HEADCOUNT CAPACITY Add Capacity 22,927 0 22,927 22,927 0 22,927 0 22,927 0 22,927 612 23,539 a 23,539 0 Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity 22,927 22,927 22,927 22,927 22,927 23,539 23,539 23,539 L2►'I 6 MIllID►`WI Basic Headcount Enrollment 21,148 20,853 20,903 20,924 20,944 20,752 20,773 20,789 Internet Academy Headcount Enrollment) (255) (255) (255) (255) (255) (255) (255) (255) Basic FIE Enrollment without Internet Academy 20,893 20,598 20,648 20,669 20,689 20,497 20,518 20,534 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) 1 1 1 1 1 PROGR" FTE CAPACITY 2,034 2,329 2,279 2,258 2,238 3,042 3,021 3,005 RELOCATABLE CAPACITY Current Portable Capacity Add/Subtract Portable Capacity 1,685 (92) 1,593 1,593 .0 1 1,593 1,593 51 1 1,645 1.645 52 1 1,697 h5: �- 52 1 1,749 1.749 .52 1,801 1.801 52 1 1,853 1,853 0 1 1,853 Adjusted Portable Capacity SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROCRAM AND RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 3,627 3,922 3,924 3,955 3,987 4,843 4,874 4,858 Internet Academy students areincluded in projections but do not require fulltime use of school facilities. This represents historic enrollment. W FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPACITY SUMMARIES, Continued Capacity Summary - Elementary Schools Actual Budget - - Projected - - Calendar Year ISchoolYear 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM HEAD COUNT CAPACITY 11,562 11,562 11,562 11,562 11,562 11,562 12,174 12,174 Add/Subtract capacity total 0 0 0 0 0 612 0 0 Add capacity atl: ; ; ; ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . De Vry . . . . . . .0. .. . . . . Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity 11,562 11,562 11,562 11,562 11,562 12,174 12,174 12,174 ENROLLMINT Basic Headcount Enrollment 9,612 9,618 9,628 9,637 9,647 9,443 9,453 9,462 Internet Academy Headcount (20) (20) (20) (20) (20) (20) (20) (20) Basic Headcount Enrollment without Internet Acadenry 9,592 9,598 9,608 9,617 9,627 9,423 9,433 9,442 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) 1 1 1 1 PROGRAMCAPACITY 1,970 1,964 1,954 1,945 1,935 2,751 2,741 2,732 RELOCATABLE CAPACITY' Current Portable Capacity 931 889 889 889 889 889 889 889 Add/Subtract portable capacity (42) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Add portable capacity at: Subtract portable capacity at: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Olympic View K-8 Adjusted Portable Capacity 889 889 889 889 889 889 889 889 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 2,859 2,853 2,843 2,834 2,824 3,640 3,630 3,621 NOTES: 1 Capacity increases are projected based on a design to accommodate 525 students. Increased capacity is currently stated as the difference between current calculated capacity and the projected design. In order to reduce elementary class size, Devey capacity is calculated at 17 scholars per clas sroom. 2 Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time use of school facilities. This represents historic enrollment. Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which can be used to temporarily house students until permanent facilities are available. This is a calculated number only based on class size capacity of 21. The actual number of portables that will be used will be based on actual student population needs. upi FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPACITY SUMMARIES, Continued Capacity Summary - Middle Schools Actual Budget - - Projected - - Calendar Year ISchoolYear 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM HEADCOUNT CAPACITY 5,275 5,275 5,275 5,275 5,275 5,275 5,275 5,275 Add/Subtract capacity 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... ••• Add capacity at: Illahee ... 5,275 .... 5,275 ... 5,275 ... 5,275 . .. 5,275 ... 5,275 5,275 . 5,275 Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity ENROLLMENT Basic Headcount Enrollment 4,893 4,714 4,749 4,754 4,759 4,763 4,768 4,768 Internet Academy (55) (55) (55) (55) (55) (55) (55) Basic Enrollment without Internet Academy 4,838 4,659 4,694 4,699 4,704 4,708 4,713 4.713 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) 1 1 1 PROGRAMCAPACITY 437 616 581 576 571 567 562 562 RELOCATABLE CAPACITY3 Current Portable Capacity 338 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 Add/Subtract portable capacity (50) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (50) Illahee Middle School Adjusted Portable Capacity 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 725 904 869 864 859 855 850 850 Illahee Middle Schools currently have capacity for 850 students, so no new capacity is anticipated with the rebuild of these older buildings. Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time use of school facilities. This represents historic enrollment. 3 Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which can be used to temporarily house students until permanent facilities are available. This is a calculated number only based on class size capacity of 25. The actual number of portables that will be used will be based on actual student population needs. a.^. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPACITY SUMMARIES, Continued Capacity Summary - High Schools CAPACITY Actual Budget - - Projected - - Calendar Year 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 School Year 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 BUILDING PROGRAM HEADCOUNT CAPACITY Add/Subtract capacity Thomas Jefferson High School 6,090 0 6,090 0 6,090 0 6,090 0 6,090 0 6,090 0 6,090 0 6,090 0 ....... 6,090 ............. 6,090 6,090 6,090 .... 6,090 .... 6,090 .... 6,090 ..... 6,090 Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity Basic Headcount Fnrolhnent 6,643 6,521 6,526 6,533 6,539 6,546 6,552 6,559 Internet Academy' (180) (180) (180) (180) (180) (180) (180) Basic Ed without Internet Acadenry 6,463 6,341 6,346 6,353 6,359 6,366 6,372 6,379 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAMCAPACITY 373 (251 256 263 (269 276 282) 289 RELOCATABLE CAPACH12 Current Portable Capacity Add/Subtract portable capacity As Needed on High School Campuses 416 0 416 0 416 52 520 52 624 52 728 52 832 52 936 0 ....... ....... .................. .................. 52 . 5-2 • 52- 52 .... .... 52- .... .... .... .... Adjusted Portable Capacity 416 416 520 624 728 832 936 936 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE CAPACITY3 43 165 264 361 459 556 654 647 NOTES: Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time use of school facilities. This represents historic enrollment. 2 Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which can be used to temporarily house students until permanent facilities are available. This is a calculated number only based on class size capacity of 25. The actual number of portables that will be used will be based on actual student population needs. 3 Capacity for unhoused students will be accommodated with traveling teachers and no planning time in some classrooms. 27 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Single and Multi -Family Residences Each jurisdiction that imposes school impact fees requires that developers pay these fees to help cover a share of the impact of new housing developments on school facilities. To determine a proportionate share of the costs of growth -related facilities, the District uses a formula first adopted by King County. The formula uses growth related facilities costs, and provides credits for any anticipated State School Construction Assistance Program funds related to the project, and a credit for the anticipated property taxes that would be assessed against the unit for the costs of the same improvement. The final unfunded need is then discounted by 50% based on the code requirement. This formula can be found in King County Code 21A and was substantially adopted by the City of Auburn, Federal Way, and Kent. The formula requires the District to establish a "Student Generation Factor" which estimates how many students will be added to a school district by each new single or multi -family unit and to gather some standard construction costs, which are unique to that district. Impact Fee Calculation When applicable, the CFP includes variables for the calculation of the Impact Fee for single family and multi -family units based on King County Code 2 1 A and the Growth Management Act. Plan Year 2025 Plan Year 2026 Single Family Units Multi -Family Units $0 $0 $0 $0 W-1 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN IMPACT FEE CALCULATION, CON'T SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COST FACILITIES CAPACITY Permanent Facility Capacity: Changes to the Building Program Capacities calculation are found on page 15. Capacity Summaries: The changes in the Capacity Summary reflect the changes in the capacities and student forecast. New schools and increased capacity at current buildings are shown as increases to capacity. Capacity Summaries are found on pages 22-26. Student Generation Factor Analysis: Federal Way Public Schools student generation factor was determined separately for single-family units and multi -family units. The factors used in the 2026 Capital Facilities Plan were derived using actual generation factors from single- family units and multi -family units that were constructed in the District in the last five (5) years and can be found on the next page. Temporary Facility Cost: The list of portables reflects the movement of portables between facilities or new portables purchased. Portable Locations can be found on pages 16 and 17. WE FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN STUDENT GENERATION RATES New Construction 2020-2024 Single family - Year Built Homes KG 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th ESTotal 6th 7th 8th MS Total 9th 10th 11th 12th I HSTotal Total 2020 45 7 10 7 7 5 9 45 2 7 3 12 3 1 5 3 4 1 15 72 2021 27 3 10 5 2 4 3 27 2 4 2 8 3 1 1 2 2 1 8 43 2022 15 1 0 1 4 1 2 9 1 5 1 7 3 3 1 2 j 9 25 2023 18 2 5 2 1 3 2 15 2 2 5 9 1 1 1 3 6 30 2024 10 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 4 15 Total 115 16 26 17 15 16 17 107 7 18 11 36 12 11 7 -+ 12 42 185 (Multifamily Units- 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th ESTotal 6th 7th 8th MS Total 9th 10th 11th 12th I HSTotal Total - - -KG - - -- ------- -------- ------- -- ----- ----------- --------- --------- --------- ----------------- - ---------- ------- ---t----------- --------- 21-Watermark(650) 221 30 23 31 25 24 26 159 23 27 28 78 22 30 25 26 1 103 340 24-Trouve(450) 233 4 I 4 2 5 1 16 1 2 3 1 3 4 1 8 27 24-Redondo Heights(2310) 202 17 I 19 1 19 18 16 18 107 9 9 7 25 6 j 4 1 1 j 12 144 Total 656 51 46 1 52 48 41 44 282 33 36 37 106 29 37 26 31 I 123 511 (Single family 2020 Homes 45 ES 45 MS 12 I HS 15 Total 72 ES SGR 1.0000 MS SGR r HS SGR 0.2667 0.3333 Total SGR 1.6000 2021 ---------------------------------- 2022 27 -------------- 15 27 -------------- 9 8 -------------- 7 8 -------------- 9 43 ----------- 25 1.0000 ------------ 0.6000 0.2963 ------------ 0.4667 0.2963 ----------- 0.6000 1.5926 ------ ----- 1.6667 2023 2024 18 10 15 11 9 0 6 4 30 15 0.8333 1.1000 0.5000 0.3333 0.0000 0.4000 1.6667 1.5000 Total 115 107:± 36 I 42 181. 0.9304 0.3130 . 0.3652 1.6087 1 Multi family Units ES MS HS Total ES SGR MS SGR r HS SGR Total SGR 21-Watermark (650) 221 159 78 103 340 0.7195 0.3529 0.4661 1.5385 124-Trouve(450) 233 16 3 8 27 0.0687 0.1875 2.6667 0.1159 24-Redondo Heights(2310) 202 107 25 12 144 0.5297 0.2336 0.4800 0.7129 Total 656 282 106 j 123 511 0.4299 0.1616 j 0.1875 0.7790 30 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CHANGES FROM 2025 to 2026 Item Percent of Permanent Facilities Percent Temporary Facilities Average Cost of Portable Classrooms Construction Cost Allocation From/To Comment 97.68% to 97.62% Report #3 OSPI 2.32% to 2.38% Updated portable inventory $231,523 to $400,000 Cost of last portable purchased. $271.61 to $375.00 Change effective July 2024 State Match 63.86% to 67.34% Change effective February 2024 Average Assessed Value Per King County Assessor's Office SFR- $536,791 to $593,412 Single-family residences (taxable) MFR- $203,026 to $197,757 Apartments/Condos (taxable) Capital Bond Interest Rate Property Tax Levy Rate Student Generation Factors Single -Family 3.48% to 4.15% $1.53 to $1.06 Elementary 0.9649 to 0.9304 Middle School 0.4035 to 0.3130 High School 0.4211 to 0.3652 Multi -Family Elementary 0.3855 to 0.4299 Middle School 0.1740 to 0.1616 High School 0.2070 to 0.1875 Market Rate King County Treasury Division Updated Housing Inventory Note: Student generation factors for our single family units are based on new developments constructed within the District over the last five (5) years prior to the date of the fee calculation. Student generation factors for are multi- family units are based on new developments constructed within the District over the last five (5) years prior to the date of the fee calculation. Impact Feet SFR- $0 to $0 Single -Family Residential based on the updated calculation MFR - $0 to $0 Multi -Family Residential based on the updated calculation lEach jurisdiction (King County, Cities of Federal Way, Auburn, Kent) through local ordinances may adopt lesser fees. 31 WAC 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS). DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal This threshold determination analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the following actions, which are so closely related to each other that they are in effect a single action: 1. The adoption of the Federal Way Public Schools' 2026 Capital Facilities Plan by the Federal Way Public Schools for the purposes of planning for the facilities needs of the District. 2. The amendment of the King County Comprehensive Plan by King County to include the Federal Way Public Schools' 2026 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the King County Comprehensive Plan. 3. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Federal Way, City of Kent and the City of Auburn to include the Federal Way Public Schools' 2026 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the City of Federal Way's, City of Kent's, and the City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan. Proponent: Federal Way Public Schools Location of proposal, including street address, if any: The Federal Way Public Schools District includes an area of approximately 35 square miles. Areas of the cities of Federal Way, Kent, Des Moines, Milton, Algona, and Auburn fall within the District's boundaries, as do parts of unincorporated King County. Lead agency Federal Way Public Schools is the lead agency pursuant to WAC 197-11-926. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a 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. This Determination ofNonsignificance (DNS) is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issue. Comments must be submitted by 4:00 p.m., May 30, 2025. The responsible official will reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and may retain, modify, or, if significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS. If the DNS is retained, it will be final after the expiration of the comment deadline. Responsible Official: Mr. Rob Bryant Chief Finance and Operations Officer Federal Way Public Schools Telephone: (253) 945-2042 Address: 33330 8th Avenue South Federal Wav WA 98003 Date— 12 2 S Signature You may appeal this determination in writing by 4:00 p.m., May 30, 2025, to Jennifer Thomas, Federal Way Public Schools, 33330 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003, orjthomas@fwps.org Date of Issue: May 12, 2025 Date Published: May 16, 2025 and May 23, 2025 P/T No. 4 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT EQUITY , EXCELLENCE COMMUNITY Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan 2024-2025 through 2030-2031 June 2025 Kent School District No. 415 12033 SE 256`h Street Kent, Washington 98030-6643 (253) 373-7526 BOARD of DIRECTORS Ms. Meghin Margel, President Mr. Donald Cook, Vice President Mr. Tim Clark, Legislative Representative Mr. Andy Song, Director Ms. Teresa Gregory, Director ADMINISTRATION Israel Vela Superintendent of Schools Dr. Wade Barringer, Deputy Superintendent Dave Bussard, Executive Director Operations Raul Parungao, Executive Director of Finance Gordon Cook, Director of Facilities Brett Scribner, Assistant Director Capital Projects Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table of Contents - Executive Summary.................................................................................................1 II - Six - Year Enrollment Projection.............................................................................4 III - Current Kent School District "Standard of Service".................................................7 Current Standards of Service for Elementary Students ................................................... 7 Current District Standards of Service for Secondary Students ........................................ 8 IV - Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools............................................................9 V - Six -Year Planning and Construction Plan..............................................................14 VI - Portable Classrooms...........................................................................................21 VII - Projected Six -Year Classroom Capacity...............................................................25 VIII- Finance Plan.....................................................................................................30 IX - Summary of Changes to June 2024 Capital Facilities Plan.....................................34 X- Appendices..........................................................................................................35 - Executive Summary This Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan has been prepared by the Kent School District as the organization's capital facilities planning document, in compliance with the requirements of Washington's Growth Management Act, King County Code K.C.C. 21A.43 and Cities of Kent, Covington, Renton, Auburn, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, and SeaTac. This annual Plan update was prepared using data available in the spring of 2025 for the 2024-2025 school year. This annual update of the Plan reflects no new major capital projects. This Plan is consistent with prior long-term capital facilities plans adopted by the Kent School District. This Plan is not intended to be the sole planning document for all the District's needs. The District may prepare interim and periodic Long -Range Capital Facilities Plans consistent with Board Policies, considering a longer or shorter period, other factors and trends in the use of facilities, and other needs of the District as may be required. Prior Capital Facilities Plans of the Kent School District have been adopted by Metropolitan King County Council and Cities of Kent, Covington, Auburn, and Renton and included in the Capital Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction. This Plan has also been submitted to the cities of Black Diamond, Maple Valley, and SeaTac for their information and inclusion in their Comprehensive Plans. In order for impact fees to be collected in the unincorporated areas of Kent School District, the Metropolitan King County Council must adopt this Plan and a fee- implementing ordinance for the District. For impact fees to be collected in the incorporated portions of the District, the cities of Kent, Covington, Renton and Auburn must also adopt this Plan and their own school impact fee ordinances. This Capital Facilities Plan establishes a standard of service in order to ascertain current and future capacity. While the State Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, those guidelines do not account for local program needs in the District. The Growth Management Act, King County and City codes and ordinances authorize the District to make adjustments to the standard of service based on specific needs for students of the District. This Plan includes the standard of service as established by Kent School District. Functional capacity is based on an average capacity and updated to reflect changes to special programs served in each building. Portables in the interim capacity calculation use the same standard of service as the permanent facilities. The capacity of each school in the District is calculated based on the District's standard of service and the existing inventory of permanent facilities. The District's program capacity of permanent facilities reflects program changes and the state's mandated reduction of class size to meet the standard of service for Kent School District. Portables provide additional interim capacity. Kent School District is the fifth largest (FTE basis) district in the state. Enrollment is electronically reported monthly to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction ("OSPI") on Form P-223. Although funding apportionment is based on Annual Average Full Time Equivalent (AAFTE), enrollment on October 1 is a widely recognized "snapshot in time" that is used to report the District's enrollment for the year as reported to OSPI (See Table 1). The District's standard of service, enrollment history and projections, and use of interim facilities are reviewed in detail in various sections of this Plan. The District plans to continue to satisfy concurrency requirements through the interim use of portables. This Plan currently represents projects in progress funded primarily by the Kent School District's 2016 Bond, the 2018 Capital Levy, and our newly passed 2024 Capital and Tech Levy. Additional information about these projects can be found on the District's capital projects homepage (link . Additionally, project updates sent to our community of stakeholders can be accessed on the KSD website link . Based on revised student generation rates, our capacity and enrollment projections, the District will stay current with non -collection of student impact fee rate for the coming year. For a short overview, see Section IX (Summary of Changes to the June 2025 Capital Facilities Plan). 2 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 ENROLLMENT HISTORY King County Live Births Description/Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 King County Live Births 24,630 25,032 24,910 25,348 25,487 26,011 25,274 24,337 24,090 23,638 Increase/(Decrease) 402 (122) 438 139 524 (737) (937) (247) (452) Kindergarten/Birth (%) 8.3% 8.0% 8 2% 7 8% 7 9% 6 5% 7 3% 7 7% 7 3% 7 7% Source: https:Hdoh.wa.gov/data-and-statistical-reports/washington-tracking-network-wtn/county-all-births-dashboard Enrollment Grade/Fiscal Year 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 K 2,045 2,013 2,037 1,989 2,010 1,703 1,836 1,874 1,761 1,811 1 2,131 2,067 2,056 2,061 2,036 1,882 1,768 1,945 1,931 1,793 2 2,163 2,163 2,077 2,008 2,091 1,980 1,818 1,840 1,965 1,958 3 2,176 2,195 2,143 2,043 1,995 2,001 1,938 1,887 1,878 1,970 4 2,089 2,195 2,218 2,118 2,038 1,912 1,924 1,953 1,924 1,945 5 1,958 2,103 2,189 2,170 2,120 1,937 1,872 1,953 1,973 1,924 6 2,058 1,952 2,119 2,184 2,164 2,024 1,893 1,962 1,948 1,928 7 1,974 2,021 1,922 2,044 2,166 2,010 1,925 1,906 1,949 1,951 8 2,100 2,021 2,043 1,882 2,073 2,086 1,937 1,956 1,922 1,936 9 2,093 2,105 2,006 2,003 1,888 2,001 2,042 2,010 1,955 1,922 10 2,165 2,099 2,080 1,946 2,034 1,811 1,959 2,048 2,000 1,947 11 1,818 1,865 1,823 1,732 1,663 1,743 1,584 1,679 1,729 1,782 12 1,742 1,730 1,810 1,653 1,634 1,453 1,655 1,467 1,500 1,565 Total Enrollment 26,512 26,529 26,523 25,833 25,912 24,543 24,151 24,480 24,435 24,432 Yearly Increase/ (Decrease) (211) 17 (6) (690) 79 (1,369) (392) 329 (45) (3) Cumulative Increase/ (Decrease) (211) (194) (200) (890) (811) (2,180) (2,572) (2,243) (2,288) (2,291) Source: https:Hospi.kl2.wa.us/policy-funding/school-apportionment/safs-report (1251H Headcount.pdf) Enrollment 26,512 26,529 26,523 25,833 25,912 24,543 24,480 24,435 24,432 24,151 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-' 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 TABLE 1 3 II - Six - Year Enrollment Projection For capital facilities planning, enrollment projections are based on cohort survival and student yield from documented residential construction projected over the next six years (See Table 2). For this Plan, the District used data from OSPI Information and Condition of Schools (ICOS), Report 1049. King County live births and the District's relational percentage average were used to determine the number of kindergartners entering the system (See Table 2). 7.5% of 23,390 King County live births in 2021 is projected for 1,755 students expected in Kindergarten for October 1, 2025. This is a decrease of 248 live births in King County over the previous year. The District's enrollment from 2025-26 to 2030-31 is projected to decrease by an average of 1.5% each year or a total of 2,089 students. The projected enrollment for 2030-31 is 22,343. Early Childhood Education students (also identified as "ECE"), "Early Childhood Special Education ("ECSE") students are forecasted and reported to OSPI separately on Form P-223H for Special Education Enrollment. Capacity is reserved to serve students in the ECE programs at elementary schools. Within practical limits, the District has kept abreast of proposed developments. The District will continue to track new development activity to determine impact on schools. Information on new residential developments and the completion of these proposed developments in all jurisdictions will be considered in the District's future analysis of growth projections. The Kent School District serves eight permitting jurisdictions: unincorporated King County, the cities of Kent, Covington, Renton, and Auburn and smaller portions of the cities of SeaTac, Black Diamond, and Maple Valley. 4 STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR "Student Generation Factor" is defined by King County code as "the number derived by a school district to describe how many students of each grade span are expected to be generated by a dwelling unit" based on district records of average actual student generated rates for developments completed within the last ten years. Following these guidelines, the student generation rate for Kent School District is as follows: Single Family Elementary 0.222 Middle 0.092 High 0.116 Total 0.430 Multi -Family Elementary 0.075 Middle 0.030 High 0.032 Total 0.137 The student generation factor is based on 1,927 new SFD (Single Family Detached) units built between 2018 and 2023. The student generation factor is based on 1,908 new MF (Multi - Family) units built during the same period. The multi -family units consisted of 1,590 apartment units and 318 townhome units. The District sees an average of 43 students for every 100 single family units that are built and an average of 14 students for every 100 multi -family units that are built. The rate for apartment units is higher than for townhome units. The rate for apartments can vary, depending on the affordability of the units and the number of bedrooms per unit for specific buildings. Many of the apartment units built between 2018 and 2023 have market rate rents and they tend to have fewer bedrooms per unit than some of the buildings that were completed in 2016 and 2017. The multi -family rate is lower this year than it was in March 2024 because the date range used in the analysis includes fewer affordable units and fewer multiple bedroom units. In preparing the 2024-2025 to 2030-2031 Capital Facilities Plan the District contracted with Educational Data Solutions, LLC led by Dr. Les Kendrick, a noted expert in demographic studies for school districts, to analyze and prepare the student generation factor. KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 ENROLLMENT PROJECTION King County Live Births 2024 2025 2026 Description/Year 2021 2022 2023 (Proj) (Proj) (Proj) King County Live Births 23,390 23,012 22,408 22,236 22,065 21,896 Increase/(Decrease) (248) (378) (604) (172) (171) (169) Kindergarten/Birth (%) 7.5% 7.5% 7.6% 7.6% 7.5% 7.5% Source: https://doh.wa.gov/data-and-statistical-reports/washington-tracking-network-wtn/county-all-births- dashboard Enrollment Projection Grade/Fiscal Year 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 K 1 1,755 1,841 1,732 1,784 1,710 1,760 1,687 1,738 1,665 1,714 1,643 1,692 2 1,794 1,842 1,785 1,761 1,739 1,715 3 1,956 1,793 1,841 1,784 1,760 1,738 4 1,963 1,949 1,787 1,834 1,778 1,754 5 1,928 1,946 1,932 1,771 1,818 1,762 6 1,906 1,910 1,928 1,914 1,755 1,801 7 1,882 1,861 1,865 1,882 1,868 1,713 8 1,929 1,861 1,840 1,844 1,861 1,847 9 1,930 1,924 1,856 1,835 1,839 1,856 10 1,895 1,902 1,896 1,829 1,808 1,812 11 1,684 1,639 1,645 1,639 1,582 1,563 12 1,631 1,540 1,499 1,504 1,499 1,447 Total Enrollment 24,094 23,683 23,344 23,022 22,686 22,343 Yearly Increase/ (Decrease) (338) (411) (339) (322) (336) (343) Cumulative Increase/ (Decrease) (338) (749) (1,088) (1,410) (1,746) (2,089) Source: School Facilities Organization, Information and Condition of Schools (Report 1049) 26,512 26,529 26,523 25,833 25,912 Enrollment 24,543 24,48D 24,435 24,432 24,151 24,094 23,693 23,344 23,022 22,696 177 22,343 2015-16 2D16-17 2017-18 2D18-19 2D19-2D 2D2D-21 2021-22 2022-23 2D23-24 202425 2D25-26 2D26-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2D3D-31 6 (P-i) (P-i) IP-i) (Pmi) (ProI) IProI) TABLE 2 III - Current Kent School District "Standard of Service" In order to determine the capacity of facilities in a school district, King County Code 21A.06.1225 references a "standard of service" that each school district must establish to ascertain its overall capacity. The standard of service identifies the program year, the class size, the number of classrooms, students and programs of special need, and other factors determined by the district which would best serve the student population. This Plan includes the standard of service as established by Kent School District. The District has identified schools with significant special needs programs as "impact" schools and the standard of service targets a lower-class size at those facilities. Portables included in the capacity calculation use the same standard of service as the permanent facilities. The standard of service defined herein will continue to evolve in the future. Kent School District is continuing a long-term strategic planning process combined with review of changes to capacity and standard of service. This process will affect various aspects of the District's standard of service and future changes will be reflected in future capital facilities plans. Current Standards of Service for Elementary Students • Class size ratio for grades K - 3 is planned for an average of 24 students per class, not to exceed 26. • Class size ratio for grades 4 - 5 is planned for an average of 27 students per class, not to exceed 29. Some special programs require specialized classroom space and the program capacity of some of the buildings housing these programs is reduced. Some students, for example, leave their regular classroom for a short period of time to receive instruction in special programs and space must be allocated to serve these programs. Students may also be provided with music instruction and physical education in a separate classroom or facility. Some identified students will also be provided educational opportunities in classrooms for special programs such as those designated as follows: Career and Technical Education (CTE) — State Program Closing Educational Achievement Gaps (Title I — Part A) - Federal Program Highly Capable Students (HiCap) - State Program rM Learning Assistance Program (LAP) — State Program Multilingual Education (MLE) - State Program Inclusive Education Service for Elementary and Secondary students with disabilities may be provided in a separate or self-contained classroom sometimes with a capacity of 10-15 students, depending on the program. Current District Standards of Service for Secondary Students The standards of service outlined below reflect only those programs and educational opportunities provided to secondary students which directly affect the capacity of the school buildings per the negotiated collective bargaining agreement with KEA. • The average class size ratio for grades 6-8 is 28 students per class and 135 students per day, with a maximum daily class load/enrollment of 142 based on five class periods per day. • The average class size ratio for grades 9-12 is 32 students per class and 153 students per day, with a maximum daily class load/enrollment of 160 based on five class periods per day. Like Inclusive Education Programs listed above, many other secondary programs require specialized classroom space which can reduce the functional capacity of the permanent school buildings, such as technology labs, performing arts activities, a variety of career and technical education programs, and other specialized programs. ace or Classroom Utilization As a result of scheduling conflicts for student programs, the need for specialized rooms for certain programs, and the need for teachers to have a workspace during their planning periods, it is not possible to achieve 100% utilization of regular teaching stations at secondary schools. Based on the analysis of actual utilization of classrooms, the Kent School District has determined that the standard utilization rate is 64% for secondary schools. Functional capacity at elementary schools reflects 56% utilization at the elementary level. 8 IV - Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools Currently, the District has a total functional capacity to house 39,705 students, which consists of a permanent functional capacity of 35,494 and interim (portable) capacity of 4,211. This capacity is based on the District's Standard of Service as set forth in Section III. Included in this Plan is an inventory of the District's schools by type, address and current capacity (See Table 3). The ratio between permanent capacity and portable capacity is 89%- 11%. The functional capacity is periodically updated for changes in the programs, additional classrooms, and new schools. Functional capacity has been updated in this Plan to reflect program changes implemented in the fall of 2024. Calculations of Elementary, Middle School and High School capacities are set forth in Table 3. Maps of existing schools are included. For clarification, the following is a brief description of some of the non-traditional programs for students in Kent School District: iGrad - Kent School District has developed the Individualized Graduation and Degree Program or "iGrad". iGrad is an Open Door (Drop -out Reengagement) School that offers a second plus chance to students aged 16-21 who have dropped out of high school or are at risk of not earning a high school diploma by age 21. iGrad is not included in this Capital Facilities Plan, because it is served as a leased space at the Kent Hill Plaza Shopping Center. Over the past three years, enrollment in the iGrad program has averaged over 340 students. Kent Virtual Academy - The Kent Virtual Academy is open to grades 6-12 and is currently serving 167 students. The virtual school offers a flexible learning experience designed to engage students when and where they work best. Each school day includes a combination of live (synchronous) virtual instruction and on -demand (asynchronous) learning opportunities outside of a traditional bell schedule. Students can attend live virtual lessons with their teachers and classmates, participate in live virtual class or small group discussions, check -in or meet with teachers, watch recorded video lessons, work independently on projects and lessons, participate in learning experiences outside the school setting for credit or to meet competencies. Virtual school students may also attend their boundary school for select classes and services. -11 SCHOOL I Year I ABR I ADDRESS Opened 2024-2025 Functional Carriage Crest Elementary 1990 CC 18235 - 140th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 626 Cedar Valley Elementary 1971 CV 26500 Timberlane Way SE, Covington 98042 541 Covington Elementary 2018 CO 25811 156th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 744 Crestwood Elementary 1980 CW 25225 - 180th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 602 East Hill Elementary 1953 EH 9825 S 240th Street, Kent 98031 779 Emerald Park Elementary 1999 EP 11800 SE 216th Street, Kent 98031 653 Fairwood Elementary 1969 FW 16600 - 148th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 528 George T. Daniel Elementary 1992 DE 11310 SE 248th Street, Kent 98030 640 Glenridge Elementary 1996 GR 19405 - 120th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 591 Grass Lake Elementary 1971 GL 28700 - 191st Place SE, Kent 98042 595 Horizon Elementary 1990 HE 27641 - 144th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 634 Jenkins Creek Elementary 1987 JC 26915 - 186th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 641 Kent Elementary 1999 KE 24700 - 64th Avenue South, Kent 98032 760 Lake Youngs Elementary 1965 LY 19660 - 142nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042 725 Martin Sortun Elementary 1987 MS 12711 SE 248th Street, Kent 98030 768 Meadow Ridge Elementary 1994 MR 27710 - 108th Avenue SE, Kent 98030 706 Meridian Elementary 1939 ME 25621 - 140th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 793 Millennium Elementary 2000 ML 11919 SE 270th Street, Kent 98030 688 Neely -O'Brien Elementary 1990 NO 6300 South 236th Street, Kent 98032 864 Panther Lake Elementary 2009 PL 12022 SE 216th Street, Kent, 98031 744 Park Orchard Elementary 1963 PO 11010 SE 232nd Street, Kent 98031 728 Pine Tree Elementary 1967 PT 27825 - 118th Avenue SE, Kent 98030 732 Ridgewood Elementary 1987 RW 18030 - 162nd Place SE, Renton 98058 661 River Ridge Elementary 2021 RR 22420 Military Rd. S., SeaTac, WA 98198 886 Sawyer Woods Elementary 1994 SW 31135 - 228th Ave SE, Black Diamond 98010 549 Scenic Hill Elementary 1960 SH 26025 Woodland Way South, Kent 98030 837 Soos Creek Elementary 1971 SC 12651 SE 218th Place, Kent 98031 591 Springbrook Elementary 1969 SB 20035 - 100th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 730 Sunrise Elementary 1992 SR 22300 - 132nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042 719 Elementary TOTAL 20,055 Canyon Ridge Middle 1966 CR 11000 SE 264th Street, Kent 98030 1,110 Cedar Heights Middle 1993 CH 19640 SE 272nd Street, Covington 98042 1,140 Mattson Middle 1981 MA 16400 SE 251st Street, Covington 98042 1,020 Meeker Middle 1970 MK 12600 SE 192nd Street, Renton 98058 1,230 Meridian Middle 1958 MM 23480 - 120th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 1,110 Mill Creek Middle 2005 MC 620 North Central Avenue, Kent 98032 1,200 Northwood Middle 1996 NW 17007 SE 184th Street, Renton 98058 1,140 Middle TOTAL 7,950 Kent -Meridian High 1951 KM 10020 SE 256th Street, Kent 98030 2,595 Kentlake High 1997 KL 21401 SE 300th Street, Kent 98042 2,714 Kentridge High 1968 KR 12430 SE 208th Street, Kent 98031 2,932 Kentwood High 1981 KW 25800 - 164th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 2,917 High TOTAL Kent Laboratory Academy 2021 DISTRICT TOTAL KLA 105 SE 208th St., Kent, WA 98031 Table 3 11,158 542 39,705 10 Kent School District 2024/ 2025 School Year High School Boundaries N Kentridge High School Kent -Meridian High School Kentwood • High School Kentlake High School • 0 2 4 8 Miles I I I I I I I I I King County, WA State Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA Legend High School 0 Kentridge High • Buildings School 0 Kent -Meridian 0 Kentwood High High School School 0 Kentlake High School Kent School District 2024/ 2025 School Year Middle School Boundaries Mill Creek • Meeker ,Meridian • Canyon Ridge 0 1.88 3.75 7.5 Miles I I I I I I I 18 Middle Schools 0 Cedar Heights Middle School 0 Canyon Ridge Middle School 0 Mattson Middle School 0 Meeker Middle School 0 Meridian Middle School Northwood • Mattson 0 Cedar Heights King County, WA State Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA Mill Creek Middle School 0 Northwood Middle School `p" Kent School District 2024/ 2025 School Year Elementary School Boundaries 0 River Ridge Neely O Brien Kent N Fairwood J —T—J-- °Ridgewo d Springbrook Glenridge Lake Youngs Panther Emerald I-Ae Park .Soos Creek Park Orrchard Sunrise East Hill GeorgeT. Daniel Martin Sortun Scenic Hill. Millennium Meadow Ridge Tree Tree 0 1.88 3.75 7.5 Miles I I I i I i I i I Meridian Cres wood 0I — Covington Jenkins ,Horizon � Cry Cedar ally Grass Lake I Sawyer Woods o King County, WA State Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA Fairwood Meadow Ridge Ridgewood Elementary Elementary Elementary C Carriage Crest Elementary Glenridge Meridian River Ridge Elementary Elementary Elementary C Cedar Valley Elementary Grass Lake 0 Millennium Sawyer Woods Elementary Elementary Elementary Covington Elementary Horizon Elementary 0 Neely O Brien Scenic Hill Crestwood Jenkins Creek Elementary Elementary C Elementary Elementary 0 Panther Lake Soos Creek C Daniel Elementary Kent Elementary Elementary Elementary C East Hill Elementary Lake Youngs E- Park Orchard Springbrook Elementary Elementary Elementary Emerald Park Elementary Martin Sortun Pine Tree Sunrise Elementary Elementary 13 Elementary Elementary Schools V - Six -Year Planning and Construction Plan In November 2016, the voters of the Kent School District approved a bond measure for $252 million. This bonding authority provided for the replacement of Covington Elementary school, which opened in August of 2018, the new River Ridge Elementary school, and our new Kent Laboratory Academy, which both opened in August 2021. As a critical component of capital facilities planning, county and city planners and decision - makers are encouraged to consider safe walking conditions for all students when reviewing applications and design plans for new roads and developments. This should include sidewalks for pedestrian safety to and from schools and bus stops, as well as bus pull-outs and turn- arounds. Included inthis Plan isan inventoryof potential projectsand sites identified bythe District which are potentially acceptable site alternatives in the future (See Table 4 & Sitemap). Voter approved bond issues have included funding for the purchase of sites for future schools and district use; the sites acquired to date are included in this Plan. Some funding is secured for the purchase of additional sites but may also be funded with impact fees as needed. Not all undeveloped properties meet current school construction requirements, and some property may be traded or sold to meet future facility needs. The Board will continue an annual review of standards of service and those decisions will be reflected in each update of the Capital Facilities Plan. The Kent School District continues to make improvements to the facilities through completion of the 2016 Bond, 2018 Levy, and the recent voter approved 2024 Levy. At this moment the standing of the current measures are as follows: Measure Complete In Progress Not Started 2016 Bond 85% 13% 2% 2018 Levy 72% 13% 15% 2024 Levy 0% 14% 86% The Kent School District anticipates and is planning to run a Bond in 2028 for additional emergent needs, differed maintenance, tenant improvement projects, and possible facility replacement. As a part of the planning process, the District has been tracking a few major development projects which have affected enrollment and will continue to increase students' forecasts. On Meeker Street in Kent, we have seen several major apartment complexes, ETHOS and Midtown 64 Apartments. These continue to have an impact on enrollment as they fill up their newly built facilities. The Alexian Gateway Project is located on the corner of Military Road 14 and Veterans Drive in Kent and began occupying its 283 units in 2023-2024. In Covington, we are tracking a multi -family house development which has been approved and construction has begun. The 1700-unit Lakepointe Urban Community will fall within our enrollment boundary and proposed completion of Phase 4 is shown to be 2027. Construction in the Kent School District boundaries have been steadily rising over the last five years and planned communities are now being recognized through the planning teams in multiple city and county jurisdictions we serve. 15 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.415 Site Acquisitions and Projects Planned to Provide Additional Capacity SCHOOL / FACILITY / SITE Map I ELEMENTARY Map MIDDLE & HIGH TEMPORARY FACILITIES #on I 2 OTHER SITES ACQUIRED Map LOCATION Projected Projected�,. Status Completion ProgramDate Caoacity Approximate I Approximate I Additional Capacity Land Use I I Land Use Designation TVP e Jurisdiction 16 White House - Kent 11027 SE Kent-Kangley Kent, WA 98030 Commercial Purchased King County 16a Green Building - Kent 11109 SE Kent-Kangley Kent, WA 98030 Commercial Purchased King County Notes: None Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 4 May 2022 16 N JI KANUt rc - J m roar -- "t `w 1 Fq Fairwood, ` i t eLvo O I eesdol in �"r �Gy ■. Clem Maple Salley ` a > ¢ a Pork ��irwood _ 4 S < 170 ST 5 d _¢ > SE gq168 ST ` -may a0D�ry', ner hls Pork T PETROV I TSKY¢ �` 0 9 Cedar Ciove Airport MIMIC EN HUB 172 PE po �� G Cedar oun ¢ nJon FarrWood Golf La ke > Ced M taig k C- /`� ounlry Club yF,tK,F,J ¢ G0 S+M 76 ST O g o �� ' — w - sE HE ST SE BE \ 176 ST \ Oe' �l ,, < SEANTA +S w ¢ + + + + + +- Rid od } P� + rvB .> o C ri Crest Pefr0vitsky S_ SE O J r w SQ \8 SST Or Ilia SW 43 ST R� a sE iao ST E ementa HO Park'. Ele on ry Veep I re , --ioR GS SRC BOW r°lle/Ridge = _ S GARR N '�..u, ■o ■ -Y PSE �P� n -- ' LG e PO,k _ d� o I - < va > > �_ Loke YoungsTror l ____5E 18415 �� Lake i SE 184 ST °� -foulevord sT oo P S 188 ST �� ¢ ¢ t Zone Pork MidTeStff - Cedar Grove Angle Lk N Meo�aer m - - ■Mee r \ se IsasT 0 m + 92 ST + 2 k \ SE 192 ST } 6 �OF Pork +...� o +o —o +o SE -+92 ST O� e c go aYoun o o , ------ I-)+o 0 0 09 +oP� y --;a e Pk o o S o 196 o ST o 0 0 o P A N T E R c o O EI enta o 4 0 o N o 0 0 N O � ��'i o v- N o SE 196GI@h '` N O ■ o v N O < N 9 0 °o a S T ex . sz ST — — o O, in '�.\"` N N r N A TAC s 20o sr - S 200 S$ pro T Pan if e taty 'N �5 lementa Lake < BE zoo sr Lake co ■ o ':) Peterson P w� a v"'i SE 204 �ST \ % L A EKent A Youngs m N �c V �t ratory'a O ' � IE Hi h bo A`O ST + `P �OG� �� !F, SE 208 ST + ¢xi. isoi + d+� + ti + CITY F SEAT E LAKE OUNGS WATERSHED > 000�Fy TS/ry +.,, J'+ S 212 ST S 212 ST > S Q Emerald Par i'+------------- ¢ n w O r aAther ke n ■ Elementary o 0 0 G 216 0 `STP° ¢ ¢ v¢> Ele'u�eli�mCreek ST Soos re lr' -------- r �TF QO 0 o r �sE w Connonch > J ry rlen s z1e sT c°rr s° IF, Troll> - L udOW A K`' ¢ P MA E V c o �ffb�}� ■ \ E N� ' T s zzzsr SE 222�ST ■ ■ '� ime SE 224 ST �pG w� L oke o a J n ¢ + + + + + + 06 + + SF of SPA U g North. nidRr�N _ dO 228 9T s za sr orcno -- Park Orchard � r r dl ° o - s� Q SE zz8 S Pork --' 1 ^Elegy ntary `•� �, SE 232 ST I\ 'a SE 232 Neel ~ 'Bri n 232 ST a — WesfCanyon 1 Ele �t�'y{ -- �,�. N N >¢ IX Pk/— w ■ -... rn i 'iKen1 '¢ �' Meridian 'l \1 In /'•q'�F,� 909 ca mos Memorlot w Middle Sch of Ham _ a y o/Irela p o ■ - �� oke ,-. R; ST+ > � + s� Russell < ST B° E E < j entary N + N Mork } + ^ T + + > O2 Rp o o eeR Eas Hill y SE /r 240 S F- cxi* as be \\ W Rd WS z M EK R ST zS 3 ` ¢ .E. n1� r ry LrM ake t,� r(i iLey ! L, a ¢ Matt on�n1-...�' �P �O N Q WIIdE � 9S Pk_ '�9,0� d R� e �i 4p s248 ST ■E N �48 ,_: w Midde5e1 / k-- 5 J a P G°J e ,N socC n e am 0� °9 He Schoolan ■ ry Club - n n 'a Er a tary LokeWlldern ss ti G ood o ov 6 East Kent rstrict r,. ■ ■ -ColfCourse Pa ws■s en �S254ST +PO-k_aU U + 900 w} MAPLE ST o\ + +SE ��Q - T a� } O�PG`l'� } ARRYWildern ss �d� --,+ 259 PL , _ Woody r�E S 25 ST `,' off. Cen ter a �' �, h ■ lie IltS ro �$ h Loke Lucerne x\ of Lgke h 9i©No ■ a kF M n I iJ KEghScho Loke Lake' r La�eFenwick s 2sz s7 � m h d EI`xh'figh School ,,� C c S slf zs Sr P — �A SE zs Jar Valley �� WI l de Fenwick �y� �E WICk N N m E kn11 I SE 2sssT �I le �ctps @ekes Elementary N Park EI menu ;Pork > I P '� SE zs7sT > ¢> ¢ y J ek Q ■ Cedar Heights '[S TA R b a ¢ SE2 11e m QO Middle School N '/� SE 272 ST a EI -ht Lake - -Pork (Co,J SE 272 = +� SE 72 ST mod. Q +North 1 90 + + + — 516 + + s + G� :SE - 274 ST J' - w (SE'KENT - KANGLEY > rxT LAKE �� <' '� �, � ��� s � s � Meri ion o �- , 5 ¢ _ Green ��PipeM �P rkr S 277 T S�, o ■ �,. Tr; _ _. orizon > �.\ SE 276 ST - 1 ti ow Rid Pi¢ p � . S LAKE w Ri 8e J#erif ry •' lementa C 2 l STAR RD T'hoolas fie, ntary IM FF n Elk Slur leke SE 281 sfj m 1 0 , ovington N O s Grass Lake Go If Cou Park �Couniy� o - F Gonyon SE' 284 ST Elementary SPark } �� + Berryda�e�Q �+ COVINGZG■ SAWYER RD + o SE +288 CO ¢ 0/ - �. SE 292 S� Res) Crest a KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT �.:.p oL01 A;r°rk 6ST ksOr are°I burnunlcl Coll Grass Lake SE s arse - �- - N w� U a Kentlake rk ST y�SE 304 ST T � High School ■N 00 + + +SITE ACQUISITIONS no PKE4fo9 Lake ��8 Z �p5 oy sawyer ads Lee Hill Seattle Int "/ Dig J� F 1 Elementary - N NW y �\ R�5 SE 312 ST a2 Rocewoy�WynaCo m Co ���0 i 'Pr g oke Pork o m 9P� + ,Auburn dole Sags Gib X A 9� 17 © copyright KROLL MAP COMPANY, INC. This map has been modified by KSD 05/22 � I I 3 / / 12pp$ 1��35 TRASH EN OS RES z i N251 -1 - \ \ 11 36 1A\ 3� ,�p36 - 1\ \ ' 12e53 �23g1 \ \ � 1 � \ �A\ 32 1�2 3 / 2a �l2t,A \ �132A 1 322 / \ ' 1p10 / N�21 1o9 1p2p 131 a , 15 / NIb 1� \ 16 \ \ 11216 1 12�A 316 N'5'1 c TRASH ENCLOSURES 21°,\ 301 2�p1 APARTMENT PROJECTS WITH MULTIPLE BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE MONUMENT SIGNS ------- SHOWING THE STREET ADDRESSES OF EACH BUILDING AT EACH VEHICLE ENTRANCE TO THE SITE. EACH ETHICAL ENTRANCE SHALL ALSO HAVE AN ILLUMINATED SITE PLAN AND / OR DIRECTLY SIGNS. THE SIGNS SHALL SHOW THE LOCATION OF THE SIGN (THE VIEWER'S CURRENT LOCATION) AND ALL BUILDING ADDRESSES. DWELLING NUMBERS SHALL BE INCLUDED. THE MONUMENT SIGNS SHALL HAVE A CONTRASTING BACKGROUND COLOR. ALL SITE SIGNAGE TO BE PER OWNERS SPECIFICATION AND DESIGN AND UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT. * INDICATE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ILLUMINATED BUILDING ADDRESS SIGNAGE. SIGNAGE FOR BUILDINGS MUST INCLUDE THE ENTIRE BUILDING ADDRESS AND STREET NAME. THE BUILDING ADDRESS SHALL BE NO LESS THAN SIX (6) INCHES IN HEIGHT. THE BUILDING SIGN SHALL HAVE A CONTRASTING BACKGROUND COLOR. 3102 -- 3103 -------------------- --- 3106 3107 3110 3111 3202 3302 3203 3206 3207 3210 3211 3402 3303 3306 g 3307 3310 3311 3403 3406 3407 3410 I 3411 1 I II I ------------------- I I I ; I I 3101 3104 3105 3108 3109 3112 3201 3204 3205 3208 3209 71""3212 3301 3304 3305 3308 I 3309 3312 3401 3404 3405 3408 ; 3409 3412 1 --- Ll-------- 3116 3216 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3316 - 3416 TRASH ENCLOSURES AMENITY SPACE C� C� n C'> n C'> C� C� TRASH ENCLOSURES 0 \ 22 I Cf' 2210 �ro \ 23 6 \ O O O 0 O c \ O c N111 OO O G 1 \ \ 31�11` 0 2(k0 W \ 3 1P6 ,1p \ 2l°$ " 2 � 2 \ \ LN1p 2N 22 A\ 2 312 231IA le O TRASH ENCLOSU / p ppt - / \ V ✓ , �ON13 AA°6 \ p9 1 \ \ / i ;a 12 03 / 1 NN 0 \ 12 6 y / \ Y 3p / NORTH i 1 UNIT NUMBERING PLAN SCALE: 3/64" = 1'-0" 3217 3317 3417 II II II II �I & 3101 3201 3301 3401 ' II II II II ---------------- 3114 I 3214 3314 3414 II II II - II II _ II ------------------- --, 3115 &3215 3315 � I 3415 II I ' II ; I ; ------------------ II 3118 II 3218 it 3318 ' 3418 I I ------------- 3119 ; 3220 3219 3320 3319 3420 3419 ; ; I -T--------------------- I ------ 3122 L3221 3222 3321 3322 3421 3422 I 3123 3223 ------ f 3323 3224 3423 ' 3324 --J 3424 LEGEND --------------- ONE BEDROOM UNITS - - ----'' TWO BEDROOM UNITS THREE BEDROOM UNITS I k TYPE A UNITS ----- NO UNIT — GARAGE ONLY BUILDING SIGNAGE 1. UNIT NUMBERS READ TOP TO BOTTOM (FLOOR 1-4) AS INDICATED ON THE UNIT STACK Ills\`( KATERRA 542 1st AVE. SOUTH, FLOOR 4 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 ALL DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, PLANS, IDEAS, ARRANGEMENTS AND DESIGNS REPRESENTED OR REFERRED TO ARE THE PROPERTY OF AND ARE OWNED BY KATERRA INC. WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. THEY WERE CREATED, EVOLVED, DEVELOPED AND PRODUCED FOR THE SOLE USE ON AND IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT AND NONE OF THE ABOVE MAY BE DISCLOSED OR GIVEN TO OR USED BY ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION FOR ANY USE OR PURPOSE WHATSOEVER INCLUDING ANY OTHER PROJECT, EXCEPT UPON WRITTEN PERMISSION AND DIRECTION OF KATERRA INC. © 2019 KATERRA ARCHITECTURE LLC © 2019 KATERRA ARCHITECTURE II LLC © 2019 KATERRA ARCHITECTURE III PLLC © 2019 KATERRA ARCHITECTURE IV LLC Consultant Owner TCR rRA.iv MELL CROW RESIDENTIAL Key plan Professional Seal A RCHTr 11 rA �E OF VrA ��p � +G�Or11 ALEXAN GATEWAY APARTMENTS 23000 MILITARY RD S, KENT, WA 98032 Drawn By RM Project Manager RM Job Number 075-18001 Date Of Original 12/13/19 Revisions Mark Date Description 0 06/12/2019 PERMIT SET 2 01/09/2020 REV.3ITCD UPDATES 6 05/22/2020 PC1 CORRECTIONS IFC SET 10/30/2020 UNIT NUMBERING/ ADDRESSING SHEET(1,2,3) G-00-014 28 Phasing Legend I 1 Phase IA -Maple Hills Division 5 Preliminary Plat approval in third Quarter 2021. Construction and Final Plat Recording 2022. Phase I B - Approximate Years 2019-2024 Establishment of final grade, construction of Covington Connector to Southeast boundary, construction of first phase of commercial development. Phase 2 - Approximate Years 2020-2025 Establishment of final lake perimeter, construction of 191 st Place SE extension and associated R-12 residential development, construction of second phase of commercial development on peninsula. Phase 3 - Approximate Years 2023-2028 Construction of third phase of commercial development. Phase 4 - Approximate Years 2020-2027- W] Completion of gravel pit reclamation, construction of MR at 71_�R-12 residential development _a O SE 260th St O Q O a Phase I B Phase 2 Eel Lakepointe Urban Village Phase 3 N OAI,POINTE 19 9❑ NOTE: THE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDINGS ROADWAYS AND TRAILS, IS APPROXIMATE AND DOES NOT VEST TO THIER SPECIFIC LOCATION. THE LOCATION OF ALL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE BASED ON EXISTING CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION AND THE TERMS OF THE PLANNED ACTION, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS. Phase 4 0 s Phasing Phase IA Map N 0 100 200 400 SCALE: 1" = 400' January 30, 2017 Updated September 15, 2021 Legend Medium Density Residential (R-6) High Density Residential (R-12) Mixed Residential (MR) Mixed Use / Commercial (RCMU) Mix of Multi -Family and Commercial is Encouraged within Peninsula Area Public Streets © Central Pond Feature Wetland Wetland Buffer Publicly Accessible Parks and Plazas Landscape Areas Disturbed (Graded) Open Space Undisturbed Open Space Covington Highlands Trail �'�•••� Trails / Offsite Trail Connections I Steep Slope and Buffer 1 CONNECTION PROPERTY BY Focal Point / Public Gathering Spot T Gateway Element Proposed Park and Ride Facility © Transit Stop Proposed Truck and Bus Return Route Stop Light cab Bike Route OProposed Trail Parking �•+� Jenkins Creek Pedestrian / Wildlife Undercrossing RCMU OPEN -' \\SPACE ^ 86,894 IF 1.99 AC 1 43- RCMU PARKS 24,956 IF 0.57 AC SPECIAL PAVEMENT R-12 OPEN SPACE 572,210 IF 13.14 AC R-12 OPEN SPACE -. 34,788 SF 0.80 A IN Vr Lakepointe Urban Village OAKPOINTE I i ♦ O ♦ O CENTRAL POND FEATURE RCMU PARKS R-12 PARKS 97,621 IF 7,254 IF 2.24 AC 0.17AC N R- 12 PARKS 14,185 SF 0.33 AC j i i NOTE: THE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDINGS ROADWAYS AND TRAILS, IS APPROXIMATE AND DOES NOT VEST TO THIER SPECIFIC LOCATION. THE LOCATION OF ALL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE BASED ON EXISTING CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION AND THE TERMS OF THE PLANNED ACTION, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS. ✓ . W = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �\ . . . . . W . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .W.W.• . 7 � R-6 OPEN SPACE 21 go 1,880,037IF "••• 43.16 AC _ r r MR PARKS 20 MR OPEN SPACE ----Ad - -1 22,507 IF MR PARKS 0.52 AC 12,711 IF 0.29 AC I R-12 OPEN SPACE 5,687 IF 0.13 AC R-12 PARKS 32,553 IF 0.75 AC R-6 PARKS 14,112 IF 0.32 AC MR PARKS 128.425 IF 2.95 AC -12 PARKS 12,500 IF 0.29 AC \ up K ke• A = P 139.837 IF 3.21 AC COMBINED OPEN SPACE TABLE ZONE GROSS ACREAGE PARKS OPEN SPACE* POND TOTAL AMENITIES NET ACRES** RCMU 91.25 AC 2.81 AC 1.99 AC 8.41 AC 13.21 AC 78.03 AC MR 34.00 AC 5.78 AC 0.52 AC 2.43 AC 8.73 AC 25.27 AC R-6 53.5 I AC 0.55 AC 47.68 AC 0.00 AC 48.23 AC 5.27 AC R-12 1 35.34AC 1.53AC 1 14.17AC 1 7.67AC 1 23.37AC 11.98AC TOTAL 2 14. 10 AC 10.67 AC 64.36 AC 18.5 I AC 93.55 AC I 120.55 AC * w' KT 4*OPEN SPACE INCLUDES CRITICAL AREAS, BUFFERS, AND OTHER GREEN SPACES �.,. **NET ACRES EQUALS GROSS ACREAGE MINUS TOTAL AMENITIES PARKS TABLE ZONE SQFOOTAGE ACREAGE RCMU 122,577 IF 2.81 AC MR 251,910 IF 5.78 AC R-6 24,020 IF 0.55 AC R-12 66,492 IF 1.53 AC TOTAL 464,999 IF 10.67 AC OPEN SPACE TABLE ZONE SQFOOTAGE ACREAGE RCMU 86,984 IF 1.99 AC MR 22,507 IF 0.52 AC 76 2,077,056 IF 47.68 AC R-12 617,234 IF 14.17 AC TOTAL 2,803,691 IF 64.36 AC POND TABLE ZONE SQFOOTAGE ACREAGE RCMU 366,128 IF 8.41 AC MR 106,040 IF 2.43 AC R-6 0 IF 0.00 AC R-12 334,094 IF 7.67 AC TOTAL 806,262 IF 18.51 AC N 0 100 200 400 Master Development Plan q) "6=� SCALE: I" - 400' January 30, 2017 Updated September 15, 2021 VI - Portable Classrooms The Plan references use of portables as interim capacity for facilities. Currently, the District utilizes portables to house students in excessoffunctional capacity and for program purposes at some school locations (Please see Appendices A, e, Q. Based on enrollment projections, implementation of full day kindergarten programs, lower state mandated class sizes, functional capacity, and no need for additional interim capacity, the District anticipates no need to purchase or lease additional portables during the next six - year period to ensure capacity requirement (Noted in section V. Six Yr. Planning Construction). During the time period covered by this Plan, the District does not anticipate that all of the District's portables will be replaced by permanent facilities. During the useful life of some of the portables, the school -age population may decline in some communities and increase in others, and these portables provide the flexibility to accommodate the immediate needs of the community. Portables may be used as interim facilities: 1. To prevent overbuilding or overcrowding of permanent school facilities. 2. To cover the gap between the times of demand for increased capacity and completion of permanent school facilities to meet that demand. 3. To meet unique program requirements. Portables currently in the District's inventory are continually evaluated and maintained. The District's goal is to reduce the number of portables so we may provide an equitable learning environment for all. The Plan projects that the District will use portables to accommodate interim housing needs for the next six years and beyond. The use of portables, their impacts on permanent facilities, life cycle and operational costs, and the interrelationship between portables, emerging technologies, and educational restructuring will continue to be examined. 21 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FACTORS FOR ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Student Generation Factors - Single Family Elementary (Grades K - 5) 0.222 Middle (Grades 6- 8) 0.092 Senior High (Grades 9 - 12) 0.116 Total 0.430 Projected Increased Student Capacity Elementary 0 Middle 0 Senior High (Academy) 0 Required Site Acreage per Facility Elementary (required) 12 Middle (required) 25 Senior High (required) 40 New Facility Construction Cost Elementary $68,000,000 Middle $155,000,000 Senior High $220,000,000 Temporary Facility Square Footage Elementary 123,702 Middle 10,256 Senior High 21,296 Total 4.4% 155,254 Permanent Facility Square Footage Elementary 1,567,594 Middle 760,483 Senior High/Other 1,077,315 Total 95.6% 3,405,392 Total Facilities Square Footage Elementary 1,691,296 Middle 770,739 Senior High/Other 1,098,611 Total 3,560,646 Developer Provided Sites / Facilities Value 0 Dwelling Units 0 * Reflects current facility construction Student Generation Factors - Multi -Family Elementary (Grades K - 5) 0.075 Middle (Grades 6- 8) 0.030 Senior High (Grades 9 - 12) 0.032 Total 0.137 OSPI - Square Footage per Student Elementary 110 Middle 134 Senior High 144 Special Education 153 Average Site Cost / Acre Elementary $161,678 Middle $0 Senior High $0 Temporary Facility Capacity & Cost Elementary @ 24 $315,000 Middle @ 28 $315,000 Senior High @ 32 $315,000 State Funding Assistance Credit District Funding Assistance Percentage 54.31 % Construction Cost Allocation CCA - Cost/Sq, Ft. $375.00 District Average Assessed Value Single Family Residence $657,970 District Average Assessed Value Multi -Family Residence $320,116 Bond Levy Tax Rate/$1,000 $0.46 Current Rate / 1,000 Tax Rate 0.0005 General Obligation Bond Interest Rate Current Bond Interest Rate 4.37% CPI Inflation Factor 5.80% Budget Preparations I OSPI (www.k12.wa.us) (APPENDIX A) `l0: KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FACTORS FOR ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Site Acquisition Cost per Single Family Residence Formula: ((Acres x Cost per Acre) / Facility Capacity) x Student Generation Factor A 1 A 2 A 3 (Elementary) (Middle) (Senior High) Required Site AcreagelAverage Site Cost/Acrel 12 $161,678 25 $0 40 $0 Facility Capacity 0 0 0 Student Factor 0.222 0.092 0.116 Total 77 $161,678 0 0.430 A L�> $0.00 Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Single Family Residence Formula: ((Facility Cost / Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Permanent/Total Square Footage Ratio) Construction Cost 7 Facility Capacity I Student Factor Footage Ratio B 1 (Elementary) $68,000,000 0 0.222 0.903 B 2 (Middle) $155,000,000 0 0.092 0.984 B 3 (Senior High) $220,000,000 0 0.116 0.998 Total $443,000,000 0 0.430 B $0.00 Temporary Facility Cost per Single Family Residence (Portables) Formula: ((Facility Cost / Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Temporary / Total Square Footage Ratio) Facility Cost 7 Facility Capacity I Student Factor I C 1 (Elementary) $315,000 24 0.222 C 2 (Middle) $315,000 28 0.092 C 3 (Senior High) $315,000 32 0.116 Footage Ratio 0.097 0.016 0.020 $282.63 $15.99 $23.57 Total $945,000 84 0.430 C $322.20 State Funding Assistance Credit per Single Family Residence (formerly "State Match") Formula: Area Cost Allowance x SPI Square Feet per student x Funding Assistance % x Student Factor Construction Cost Allocat SPI Sq. Ft. / Student Assistance % Student Factor D 1 (Elementary) $375.00 110 0.5431 0.222 $4,973.44 D 2 (Middle) $375.00 134 0.5431 0.092 $2,510.75 D 3 (Senior High) $375.00 144 0.5431 0.116 $3,401.98 D $10,886.17 Tax Credit per Single Family Residence Average SF Residential Assessed Value (AAV) $657,970 Net Present Value (per EQ) (NPV) 8.32 Current Debt Service Rate / 1,000 ( r) 0.05% TC $2,534.98 (Below used to calculate NPV) Current Bond Interest Rate 4.37% Years Amortized (10 Years)- Used in NPV Calculation 10 Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility / Site Value Dwelling Units 0 0 FC 0 Fee Recap " A = Site Acquisition per SF Residence $0.00 B = Permanent Facility Cost per Residence $0.00 C = Temporary Facility Cost per Residence $322.20 Subtotal $322.20 D = State Match Credit per Residence $10,886.17 TC = Tax Credit per Residence $2,534.98 Subtotal $13,421.15 Total Unfunded Need ($13,098.95) 50% Developer Fee Obligation ($6,549) FC = Facility Credit (if applicable) $0 District Adjustment $6,549 Net Fee Obligation per Residence - Single Family 1 $0.00 (APPENDIX B) 23 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FACTORS FOR ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Site Acquisition Cost per Multi -Family Residence Unit Formula: ((Acres x Cost per Acre) / Facility Capacity) x Student Generation Factor Required Site Acreage JAverage Site Cost/Acrel Facility Capacity I Student Factor A 1 (Elementary) 12 $161,678 0 0.075 A 2 (Middle) 25 $0 0 0.030 A 3 (Senior High) 40 $0 0 0.032 Total 77 $161,678 0 0.137 A b $0.00 Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Multi -Family Residence Unit Formula: ((Facility Cost / Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Permanent / Total Square Footage Ratio) Construction Cost Facility Capacity I Student Factor I Footage Ratio B 1 (Elementary) $68,000,000 0 0.075 0.903 B 2 (Middle) $155,000,000 0 0.030 0.984 B 3 (Senior High) $220,000,000 0 0.032 0.998 Total $443,000,000 0 0.137 B b $0.00 Temporary Facility Cost per Multi -Family Residence Unit Formula: ((Facility Cost / Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Temporary / Total Square Footage Ratio) Facility Cost Facility Capacity I Student Factor I Footage Ratio C 1 (Elementary) $315,000 24 0.075 0.097 $95.48 C 2 (Middle) $315,000 28 0.030 0.016 $5.21 C 3 (Senior High) $315,000 32 0.032 0.020 $6.50 Total $945,000 84 0.137 C b $107.20 State Funding Assistance Credit per Multi -Family Residence (formerly "State Match") Formula: Area Cost Allowance x SPI Square Feet per student x Funding Assistance % x Student Factor Area Cost Allowance I SPI Sq. Ft. / Student I Equalization % I Student Factor D 1 (Elementary) $375.00 110 0.5431 0.075 $1,680.22 D 2 (Middle) $375.00 134 0.5431 0.030 $818.72 D 3 (Senior High) $375.00 144 0.5431 0.032 $938.48 D b $3,437.42 Tax Credit per Multi Family Residence Average MF Residential Assessed Value (AAV) $320,116 Net Present Value (per EQ) (NPV) 8.32 Current Debt Service Rate / 1,000 ( r) 0.05% TC b $1,233.32 (Below used to calculate NPV) Current Bond Interest Rate 4.37% Years Amortized (10 Years)- Used in NPV Calcula 10 Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility / Site Value I Dwelling Units 0 0 FC b 0 Fee Recap ** A = Site Acquisition per Multi -Family Unit $0.00 B = Permanent Facility Cost per MF Unit $0.00 C = Temporary Facility Cost per MF Unit $107.20 Subtotal $107.20 D = State Match Credit per MF Unit $3,437.42 TC = Tax Credit per MF Unit $1,233.32 Subtotal $4,670.73 Total Unfunded Need ($4,563.53) 50% Developer Fee Obligation ($2,282) FC = Facility Credit (if applicable) 0 District Adjustment $2,282 Net Fee Obligation per Residential Unit - Multi -family $0.00 (APPENDIX C) 24 VII - Projected Six -Year Classroom Capacity As stated in Section IV, the functional capacity study is periodically updated for changes in special programs and reflects class size requirements, class size fluctuations etc. As shown in the Inventory and Capacity chart in Table 3, the functional capacity is also reflected in the capacity and enrollment comparison charts (See Tables 5 & 5a-b-c). Enrollment is electronically reported to OSPI on Form P-223 on a monthly basis and funding apportionment is based on Annual Average FTE (AAFTE). The first school day of October is widely recognized as the enrollment "snapshot in time" to report enrollment for the year. Kent School District continues to be the fifth largest district (both FTE and headcount basis) in the State of Washington. The P-223 Headcount for October 2024 was 24,432, excluding ECSE and college -only Running Start students. In October 2024, there were 1,159 students in 11th and 12th grade participating in the Running Start program at different colleges and receiving credits toward both high school and college graduation. Of these students, 629 attended classes only at the college ("college -only") and are excluded from FTE and headcount for capacity and enrollment comparisons. Kent School District has one of the highest Running Start program participation rates in the State. Based on the enrollment forecasts, permanent facility inventory and capacity, current standard of service, portable capacity, and future additional classroom space, the District plans to continue to satisfy the required capacity through the interim use of portables (See Table 5 and Tables 5 a-b-c). While the District currently shows available capacity to address projected need on a purely statistical basis, there are a variety of extenuating factors that need to be considered. The Kent School District currently makes significant use of portables, which we do not consider as part of our permanent standard of service. We have included portable space in our interim capacity figures, and we do not count that as a permanent space solution. Kent School District is unusual in that it incorporates neighborhoods intersecting with 8 jurisdictions, including Kent, Covington, Auburn, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, Renton, unincorporated King County and SeaTac. The district covers 72 square miles and includes over 40 schools. Within this large geographic area, we expect to have pockets of localized capacity need that are not necessarily reflected in the aggregate figures. As one example, the Lakepointe Urban Village development in Covington may require new classroom capacity even as space may exist in schools on the far other end of the District's boundaries. 25 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY TOTAL DISTRICT Interim Portable Capacity Elementary Portable Capacity Required 3,228 3,228 3,228 3,228 3,228 3,228 3,228 Middle School Portable Capacity Required 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 High School Portable Capacity Required 608 608 608 608 608 608 608 Interim Portable Capacity Totall 4,211 1 4,211 1 4,211 4,211 4,211 4,211 4,211 TOTAL CAPACITY 39,705 1 39,705 1 39,705 1 39,705 1 39,705 1 39,705 39,705 Total Enrollment/Projection z 1 24,432 1 24,094 1 23,683 1 23,344 1 23,022 1 22,686 122,343 DISTRICT AVAILABLE CAPACITY 15,246 15,584 15,995 16,334 16,656 16,992 17,335 1 Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 Projection Source: School Facilities Organization, Information and Condition of Schools (Report 1049) Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 May 2025 26 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY ELEMENTARY: Grades K - 5 Elementary Grade K-5 SCHOOL YEAR 2024-25 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 Actual :If P R O J E C T E D 16,696 I 16,696 I 16,696 I 16,696 I 16,696 I 16,696 I 16,696 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 Elementary Permanent Capacity' Additional Permanent Classrooms 2 Permanent Program Capacity Subtotal 16,696 16,696 16,696 16,696 16,69u 16,696 16,696 Interim Portable Capacity 3,228 3,228 3,228 3,228 3,228 3,228 3,228 TOTAL CAPACITY t 19,924 19,924 19,924 19,924 19,924 19,924 19,924 ENROLLMENT / PROJECTION 2 11,401 11,237 11,046 10,815 10,575 10,474 10,304 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY 8,496 8,660 8,851 9,082 9,322 9,423 9,593 1 Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 Projection Source: School Facilities Organization, Information and Condition of Schools (Report 1049) Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 A May 2025 27 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY MIDDLE SCHOOL: Grades 6 - 8 Middle School Grade 6-8 SCHOOL YEAR 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 1 2028-29 1 2029-30 2030-31 Actual P R O J E C T E D 7,216 0 I 7,216 I 0 I 7,216 I 0 I 7,216 I 0 I 7,216 I 0 I 7,216 I 0 I 7,216 I 0 Middle School Permanent Capacity' Changes to Middle School Capacity Permanent Program Capacity Subtotal 7,216 7,216 7,216 7,216 7,216 7,216 7,216 Portable Interim Capacity 1 1 375 1 375 1 375 1 375 1 375 1 375 1 375 :] TOTAL CAPACITY 1 1 7,591 1 7,591 1 7,591 1 7,591 1 7,591 1 7,591 1 7,591 ENROLLMENT / PROJECTION 2 5,815 1 5,717 1 5,632 1 5,633 1 5,640 1 5,484 1 5,361 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY 1,776 1 1,874 1 1,959 1 1,958 1 1,951 1 2,107 1 2,230 1 Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 Projection Source: School Facilities Organization, Information and Condition of Schools (Report 1049) Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 B May 2025 28 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY HIGH SCHOOL: Grades 9 - 12 SCHOOL YEAR 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 Actual P R O J E C T E D 10,097 0 I 10,097 I I 0 I 10,097 0 I 10,097 0 10,097 I 0 I 10,097 I 0 I 10,097 I 0 Senior High Permanent Capacity 1 Changes to High School Capacity Permanent Program Capacity Subtotal 10,097 10,097 10,097 10,097 10,097 10,097 10,097 Portables Interim Capacity 1 1 608 1 608 1 608 1 608 1 608 1 608 608 TOTAL CAPACITY ' 10,705 1 10,705 1 10,705 1 10,705 1 10,705 1 10,705 10,705 ENROLLMENT / PROJECTION 2 7,216 1 7,140 1 7,005 1 6,896 1 6,807 1 6,728 6,678 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY 1 3,489 1 3,565 1 3,700 1 3,809 1 3,898 1 3,977 4,027 1 Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 Projection Source: School Facilities Organization, Information and Condition of Schools (Report 1049) Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 C May 2025 29 VIII - Finance Plan The finance plan shown on Tab/e 6 demonstrates how the Kent School District plans to finance improvements for the years 2024-2025 through 2030-2031. The financing components include secured and unsecured funding and impact fees. The plan is based on future bond issues, state school construction assistance, collection of impact fees under the State Growth Management Act and voluntary mitigation fees paid pursuant to State Environmental Policy Act. In November 2016, the District held a special election to approve the authorization of $252,000,000 in bonding authority. The projects described below are part of this authorization. The first series of bonds ($80 million) were issued in February 2017, which funded the Covington Elementary Replacement School, as well as other infrastructure projects. Impact fees were used at both River Ridge Elementary School and Kent Laboratory Academy projects due to escalation in construction pricing across the Pacific Northwest. According to RCW 82.02.090, the definition of an impact fee is "... a payment of money imposed upon development as a condition of development approval to pay for public facilities needed to serve new growth and development, and that is reasonably related to the new development that creates additional demand and need for public facilities, that is a proportionate share of the cost of the public facilities, and that is used for facilities that reasonably benefit the new development. 'Impact fee' does not include a reasonable permit or application fee." Mitigation or impact fees can be calculated on the basis of "unhoused student need" or "the maintenance of a district's level of service" as related to new residential development. A mitigation/impact fee may be imposed based upon a determination of insufficient existing permanent and/or interim portable school space or to pay for permanent and/or newly acquired interim portable school space previously constructed as a result of growth in the district. A district's School Board must first approve the application of the mitigation or impact fees and, in turn, approval must then be granted by the other general government jurisdictions having responsibility within the district, counties, cities and towns (Kent, Covington, Renton, Auburn, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, SeaTac, and Unincorporated King County). Though the current enrollment projections increase for both elementary and secondary schools are relatively flat, the ongoing need to provide permanent instructional facilities to house students is a driving need as the shifts in our family populations continue, due to ongoing development. Previously collected impact fees may be used to support and address the challenges related to the number of interim instructional facilities currently in use, the replacement of some of these aged facilities, the maintenance of the district's level of services, and the potential expansions to existing facilities in future years. The Kent School District 2024-2025 CFP update includes continued execution of the 2016 Capital Bond Projects, the 2018 Levy Projects, and the data collection and review of our Facility Assessment Reports. The District Facilities and Capital Planning Teams had come together and joined the Capital 30 Bond Planning Task Force (CBPTF) which included District personnel, design professionals, teaching staff, student voices, as well as community members who collaborated and discussed the District's needs. The initial plan revealed priorities including school replacement due to age, and the need for added permanent facilities to (1) reduce and eliminate our need for portables and (2) accommodate future growth as housing in the Kent region continues to expand. We started with a list of 2 billion in needs and through itemizing and prioritizing, we brought the list of essential projects to 495 million. This list was brought before the District's Board of Directors for comments, discussion, and approval. A Capital Bond Measure followed and went out to vote in April 2023 and did not pass with voter approval. After the failure to pass the 2023 Bond, we re-evaluated needs as well as next steps. Surveys went out to the community to see what people would like to prioritize from the list of needed projects. A new list of projects was presented through the 2023 Levy in November. This levy did not pass. This list was again taken and revised to prioritize projects that are critical to operations and life safety within our buildings. In April we set forth our 2024 Levy to a vote, which also did not receive the needed support to pass. We once again reduced the Levy list to include only emergent needs to critical building operations, and the measure was approved by voters in November of 2024. Future updates to this Capital Facilities Plan will include details of any adopted planning. With the opening of Canyon Ridge Middle School, our sixth grade moving from elementary to middle school, and our boundary change, we have advanced opportunities to even out capacity at each site to accommodate our programs, district -wide site capacity, and student -based needs. For the Six -Year Finance Plan, costs of future schools are based on estimates from Kent School District Capital Planning Team. Please see pages 13-14 for a summary of the cost basis. Cost Basis Summary For impact fee calculations, construction estimated costs are based on the last elementary school built in Kent, adjusted for inflation, and projected cost future elementary school, as well as average pricing of nearby school districts recently built new middle and new high school projects. Project Projected Cost New Elementary School $68,000,000 New Middle School $155,000,000 New High School $220,000,000 Site Acquisition Cost The site acquisition cost is based on an average cost of sites purchased or built on within the last ten years. Please see Table 7 for a list of site acquisition costs and averages. District Adjustment The impact fee calculations on Appendix B & C result in a zero -dollar impact fee total for this year but may be adjusted if needed per RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b) provision. 31 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.415 SIX -YEAR FINANCE PLAN Secured Unsecured Impact SCHOOL FACILITIES 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 TOTAL Local & State State 2 or Locals Fees 5 Estimated Estimated PERMANENT FACILITIES $0 $0 No School Projects at this time. TEMPORARY FACILITIES Additional portables 3-4 OTHER N/A Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 F = Funded U = Unfunded NOTES: 2 The District anticipates receiving some State Funding Construction Assistance for some projects. 3 Facility needs are pending review. Some of these projects may be funded with impact fees. 4 Cost of portables based on current cost and adjusted for inflation for future years. 5 Fees in this column are based on amount of fees collected to date and estimated fees on future units. Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 6 May 2024 32 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.415 Site Acquisitions & Costs Average of Sites Purchased, Sold or Built on within last 10 Years Year Open / Type & Purchased #on Map School / Site Sold Location Acreage Cost/Price Av cost-price/acre I Total Average Cost/Acre Elementary No Acquisitions for Elemenary Schools 0.00 $0 Middle School No Acquisitions for Middle Schools Senior High No Acquisitions for High Schools Note: All rural sites were purchased prior to adoption of Urban Growth Area. Numbers correspond to locations on Site Bank & Acquisitions Map on Page 17. 1 / Urban Site - Covington area North (So of Mattson MS) 2 / Rural Site - Ham Lake east (Pollard) 4 / Urban Site - Shady Lake (Sowers-Blaine-Drahota-Paroline) 5 / Rural Site - SE of Lake Morton area (West property) 9 / Rural Site - McMillan Assemblage (South of MC) 10 / Urban Site - Yeh-Williams (W of 132 Ave SE at SE 288) 12a / Urban Site - 156th Ave. SE Covington (W ikstrom) 12b / Urban Site - SE 256th St. Covington (West of CO) 16 Site - 11027 SE Kent-Kangley, WA 98030 16a Site - 11109 SE Kent-Kangley, WA 98030 Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan 1984 1992 1995 1993 98 - 04 1999 2004 2004 2023 Site - 11027 SE 2023 Site - 11109 SE Table 7 33 Elementary Site Subtotal 0.00 $0 $0 Elem site average 0.00 $0 Middle School Site Subtotal 0.00 $0 $0 Middle schl Site Avg. 0.00 $0 $0 Senior High Site Subtotal 0.00 $0 $0 Sr Hi Site Average WA 98030 WA 98030 Total Acreage & Cost Total Average Cost / Acre 0.00 $0 #DIV/01 0.91 $1,382,696.90 ILand included 0.84 $1,744,009.52 1 Land included May 2022 IX - Summary of Changes to June 2025 Capital Facilities Plan The Capital Facilities Plan (the "Plan") is updated annually based on previous Plans in effect since 1993. The primary changes from the June 2024 Plan are summarized here. Capacity changes continue to reflect fluctuations in class size ratio and program changes. Changes in portables ortransitional capacity reflect use, lease or purchase, sale, surplus and/or movement between facilities. The District worked with Educational Data Solutions, LLC to update student generation factors. The updated rates are included in the body of the Plan. The District expects to receive some State Funding Assistance (formerly called "state matching funds") for projects in this Plan and tax credit factors are updated annually. Unfunded site and facility need will be reviewed in the future. The impact fees for 2025 calendar year will result in no collection of impact fees for both Single -Family and Multi -Family due to the capacity study completed in spring 2025. 34 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FACTORS FOR ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS X - Appendices Changes to Impact Fee Calculation Factors Include: ITEM Grade Increase/ /Type FROM TO Decrease Comments Student Generation Factor Elem 0.229 0.222 -0.007 0.087 0.092 0.005 0.113 0.116 0.003 0.429 0.430 0.001 0.109 0.075 -0.034 Single Family (SF) MS SH Total Student Generation Factor Elem Multi -Family (MF) MS 0.037 0.030 -0.007 State Funding Assistance Ratios ("State Match") Area Cost Allowance SH 0.054 0.032 -0.022 Total 0.200 0.137 -0.063 Per OSPI Website 52.88% 54.31% 1.43% $375.00 $375.00 0.000 Per OSPI Website Link Average Assessed Valuation (AV) SF $594,679 $657,970 63,291 King County AV -Average of Condominiums & Apts. MF $310,811 $320,116 9,305 King County Debt Service Capital Levy Rate / $1000 $1.11 $0.46 ($0.65) Per King Co. Assessor Report General Obligation Bond Interest Rate 3.48% 4.37% 0.89% Bond Buyers 20 year GO Index Impact Fee - Single Family SF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 No Change Impact Fee - Multi -Family MF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 No Change 35 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE For Kent School District No. 415 2024 Capital Facilities Plan Issued with a 14-day comment and appeal period. Description of Proposal: This threshold determination analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the following actions, which are so closely related to each other that they are in effect a single action: 1. The adoption of the Kent School District 2024 Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan by the Kent School District for the purposes of planning for the facilities needs of the District. 2. The amendment of the King County Comprehensive Plan to include the Kent School District 2024 Capital Facilities Plan as a part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the King County Comprehensive Plan. 3. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Kent to include the Kent School District's 2024 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Kent. 4. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Covington to include the Kent School District's 2024 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Covington. 5. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Renton to include the Kent School District's 2024 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Renton. 6. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Auburn to include the Kent School District's 2024 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Auburn. 7. This proposal may also involve amendment of Comprehensive Plans of the Cities of Black Diamond, Maple Valley, and/or SeaTac to incorporate the Kent School District 2024 Capital Facilities Plan into the Capital Facilities element of that jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. Proponent: Kent School District No. 415 Location of the Proposal: The Kent School District includes an area of approximately 70 square miles. The City of Covington and portions of the cities of Kent, Renton, Auburn, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, and SeaTac fall within the District's boundaries, as do parts of unincorporated King County. Lead Agency: Kent School District No. 415 is the lead agency pursuant to WAC 197-11-926. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the proposal does not pose a probable significant adverse impact to the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030 (2) (c). This decision was made after a review of the completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public upon request. This Determination of Non -significance (DNS) is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issue. Comments must be submitted by 3:00 p.m., June 3, 2024. The responsible official will reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and may retain, modify, or, if significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS. If the DNS is retained, it will be final after the expiration of the comment deadline. Responsible Official:, Mr. David Bussard Executive Director, Operations Kent School District No. 415 Telephone: (253) 373-7526 Address: 12033 SE 256'h Street, Bldg. B Kent, Washington 98030-6643 Appeals of this determination are governed by Board Policy No. 6890, which can be obtained from Mr. David Bussard, Executive Director, Kent School District No. 415, 12033 SE 2561h Street Bldg. B, Kent, Washington 98030-6643 and pursuant to WAC 197-11-680- and RCW 43.21 C.075. Date of Issue: 5/13/24 Date Published: 5/17/24 P/T No. 5 Public Education Facilities Auburn's residential areas are served by a combination of Auburn School District, Dieringer School District, Federal Way Public Schools, and Kent School District. Detailed inventories of school district capital facilities and levels -of -service are contained in the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) of each school district. The CFPs of the four school districts serving Auburn residential areas and the asseeiated wheel in9paet fees are adopted annually as part of the Annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Locations of schools and school districts within the City of Auburn which are illustrated in the map below. Future Plans To accommodate projected growth, the school districts have noted the following projects in their 2G23-2025 Capital Facilities Plans: Auburn School District • Portable Relocation - Opens 20232024-20242025 • Middle School #5 - Opens 2027-2028 Dieringer School District • Comprehensive Building Condition Assessment Study- Summer 2025 • Elementary School #3 -Opens 2027 • North Tapps Middle School Classroom Addition -Opens 2027 Federal Way Public Schools • Former DeVry/ES 24 Site Acquisition -Opens 2028 • Portables Expansion -Through 2030 City of Auburn Capital Facilities Element I CFE- 22 P/T No. 6 Table 1. Housing Need by Income and County Supply (2019) 28,049 1,076 237 8,029 8,075 4,427 3,302 2,903 58 King Net New * Need (2044) 12,000 1,543 812 3091L 616 1,146 1,299 6,275 2,293 Supply (2019) 3,963 0 33 134 493 1,141 680 1,482 8 Pierce Net New Need (2044)Net 20 21 _ 16 7 6 7 Total Need New 12,112 1,557 889322 330 632 1,153 1}305 6,302 2,300 Source: King County Ordinance 79660, Countywide Planning Policies, Pierce County Ordinance 2023 22s, Countywide Planning Policies City of Auburn Housing Element I HE- 11 P/T No. 7 Figure 34 - Housing Need by Income and County Supply (2019) 28,049 1,076 237 8,029 8,075 4,427 3,302 2,903 58 King Net New Need (2044) 12,000 1,543 812 309 616 1,146 1,299 6,275 i 2,293 Supply (2019) 3,963 0 33 134 493 1,141 680 1,482 8 Pierce Net New 112 20 21 16 Need (2044) _ Total Net New Need (2044) 12,112 1,557 892 832 330 632 1,153 � 1,305 6,302 2,300 Source: King County Ordinance 79660, Countywide Planning Policies, Pierce County Ordinance 2023- 22s, Countywide Planning Policies City of Auburn Housing Needs and Characteristics Assessment Update I HNA - 36 M No. 1 Proposed Land Use Map Amendment (CPA25-0005) Public/Quasi-Public Neighborhood Residential Two Neighborhood Residential Three Commercial Existing Land Use 71 Proposed Land Use L Parcel Boundary 0 100 200 300 Feet Printed On: 7/25/2025 Map ID: 6343 Exhibit D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AGENDA SUBJECT/TITLE: 2025 City -Initiated Annual Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan CITY FILE NO(s).: CPA25-0003, CPA25-0005, & CPA25-0006 APPLICANT/AGENT/OWNERS: City of Auburn REQUEST: Planning Commission to conduct public hearing and recommend to City Council approval of the 2025 City -Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Policy/Text Amendments). LOCATION: City-wide. CPA25-0006 includes the following Parcels: 8892900220, 8892900210, 8892900200, 8892900190, 8892900180,8892900170,8892900160, 8892900150, 8892900140, 8892900130, 8892900120, 8892900110,8892900100,8892900090, 8892900080, 8892900070, 8892900060, 8892900050, 8892900040, 8892900030, 8892900020, 8892900010, and 8892900230. NOTIFICATION: Hearing Notice was published in the Seattle Times and posted on the City's Land Use Notice webpage and physically at City Hall and City Hall Annex on October 10, 2025. HEARING DATE: October 21, 2025 SEPA STATUS: Two SEPA Environmental Checklists — Non -Project Action, and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment were reviewed with the 2025 City -Initiated Annual Amendment Cycle. A DNS for SEP25- 0013 was issued on August 11, 2025, with the appeal period expiring on September 9, 2025. A second SEPA environmental checklist was prepared under City file number SEP25-0016. A DNS was issued on September 22, 2025, with the appeal period expiring on October 21, 2025. EXISTING LAND USE: CPA25-0005 includes the re -designation of 23 residentially used parcels incorrectly designated as Public/Quasi-Public. CPA25-0005 corrects this error by redesignating the 23 parcels to Neighborhood Residential Two, conforming to the existing land use activities occurring at the site. Staff Member: Clark Date: 10/3/2025 STAFF: Gabriel Clark, Planner II, Dept. of Community Development STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission to deliberate and take action to recommend to City Council approval of the following Policy (P/T) and Map (M) amendments to comply with the City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan: • P/T No. 1 Auburn School District 2025 Capital Facilities Plan • P/T No. 2 Dieringer School District 2025-2031 Capital Facilities Plan • P/T No. 3 Federal Way Public Schools 2026 Capital Facilities Plan • P/T No. 4 Kent School District 2024-2025 through 2030-2031 Capital Facilities Plan • P/T No. 5 Updates to the City of Auburn Capital Facilities Element • P/T No. 6 Updates to the Housing Element • P/T No. 7 Updates to the Housing Needs Assessment • P/T No. 8 Removal of the Core Plan • M No. 1 Comprehensive Land Use Map Correction SUMMARY OF CODE CHANGES: The City of Auburn adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in 1995 in response to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements, as amended. Since then, the Auburn Comprehensive Plan has been amended annually. At the end of 2024, the City adopted a substantially updated Comprehensive Plan in compliance with state -required periodic updates. Annual Comprehensive plan amendments can be initiated by the City of Auburn (city -initiated) and by private parties (private -initiated). This year the city is initiating: • Eight (8) policy/text (P/T) amendments o P/T No. 1 Auburn School District 2025 Capital Facilities Plan o P/T No. 2 Dieringer School District 2025-2031 Capital Facilities Plan o P/T No. 3 Federal Way Public Schools 2026 Capital Facilities Plan o P/T No. 4 Kent School District 2024-2025 through 2030-2031 Capital Facilities Plan o P/T No. 5 Updates to the City of Auburn Capital Facilities Element o P/T No. 6 Updates to the Housing Element o P/T No. 7 Updates to the Housing Needs Assessment o P/T No. 8 Removal of the Core Plan • One (1) Land Use Map (M) Amendment o M No. 1 Comprehensive Land Use Map Correction In terms of process, the Comprehensive plan amendments are reviewed during a public hearing process before the City of Auburn Planning Commission, who then provides a recommendation to the City Council for final action. City Council consideration and action on the amendments generally occurs but is prior to the end of the year. Page 2 of 11 Staff Member: Clark Date: 10/3/2025 Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text Amendments (File No. CPA24-0003 & CPA25-0006, City initiated) P/T No.1 Incorporate the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan 2022 through 2031 into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Discussion The Auburn School District (District) has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) covering from 2025-2031. The CFP was prepared by the District staff and adopted by the Auburn School District School Board of Directors on June 9, 2025, and has been subject to separate SEPA review and a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) prepared by the District. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City's collection of school impact fees on behalf of the District. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan by reference. The CFP includes the following: • Six —year enrollment projections • District level of service standards • An inventory of existing facilities • The District's overall capacity of the 6-year period • District capital construction Plan • Impact fee calculations P/T No. 2 Incorporate the Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2025-2031 into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Discussion The Dieringer School District has provided the City with its Capital Facilities Plan 2025-2031. The CFP was prepared by Dieringer School District Staff and adopted by the Dieringer School District Board of Directors July, 2025. The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS prepared by the Dieringer School District. Information contained in the Dieringer School District CFP serves as the basis for the City's collection of school impact fees on behalf of the Dieringer School District. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan by reference. The CFP includes the following: • Overview • An inventory of existing facilities • Six —year enrollment projections • Standard of service • Capacity projects • Finance plan • Impact fee calculations Page 3 of 11 Staff Member: Clark Date: 10/3/2025 P/T No. 3 Incorporate the Federal Way School District 2026 Capital Facilities Plan into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Discussion The Federal Way School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan 2025. The CFP was adopted by the Federal Way School District School Board May 12, 2025. The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS prepared by the Federal Way School District. Information contained in the Federal Way School District CFP serves as the basis for the City's collection of school impact fees on behalf of the Federal Way School District. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the Federal Way School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan by reference. The CFP includes the following: • Introduction • Inventory of educational facilities & non -instructional facilities • Needs forecast, existing & new facilities • Six —year finance plan • Maps of district boundaries • Building capacities & portable locations • Student forecast • Capacity summaries • Student forecasts • Impact fee calculations P/T No. 4 Incorporate the Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan 2022-2023 to 2028-2029 into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Discussion The Kent School District has provided its annually updated 2024-2025 to 2030-2031 Capital Facilities Plan. The CFP was adopted by the Kent School District School Board in June 2025 and has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS prepared by the Kent School District. Information contained in the Kent School District CFP serves as the basis for the City's collection of school impact fees on behalf of the Kent School District. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan by reference. The CFP includes the following: • Six -year enrollment projection & history • District standard of service • Inventory, capacity & maps of existing schools • Six -year planning & construction plan • Projected classroom capacity • Finance Plan, cost basis and impact fee schedules Page 4 of 11 Staff Member: Clark Date: 10/3/2025 P/T No. 5 Incorporate updates to the City of Auburn Capital Facilities Element into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Discussion The Capital Facilities Element is one of the comprehensive plan elements required by the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A). GMA requires the Capital Facilities element to identify existing facilities, forecast future needs, and outline how those needs will be financed. It must also include policies to reassess the land use element if funding falls short, ensuring consistency and concurrency between development and public infrastructure.Updates to the Capital Facilities Element includes text revisions to Pg. CFE-22. These updates are based on the adopted Capital Facilities Plans provided by the four school districts which serve the students of Auburn. Revisions to include updated projects and timelines, as well as the removal of the text "and the associated school impact fees." P/T No. 6 Incorporate updates to Table 1 in the Housing Element into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Discussion Updates to the Housing Element consist of minor changes to the text located on Table 1 — Housing Need by Income and County. These updates include revisions to table headings and revisions to the total new net need from 892 to 832 and >1 00%-120% from 11235 to 1,305 units. P/T No. 7 Incorporate updates to Figure 34 in the Housing Needs Assessment of the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion Updates to the Housing Needs Assessment consist of minor changes to the text located in Figure 34 — Housing Need by Income and County. These updates include revisions to the total new net need to PSH from 892 to 832 and >1 00%-120% from 1,235 to 1,305 units. P/T No. 8 Remove the Core Plan as a supporting document to the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Discussion The core plan is intended to provide an assessment of the current conditions and characteristics occurring within the City of Auburn. Prepared in 2015, this document provides needed context and analysis to support the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This document also functions as a separate interface between studies such as the Housing Needs Assessment, Economic Development Strategic Plan, and the Buildable Lands report. In the attempt to refine administrative processes, analyses are now directly integrated with the Comprehensive Plan rather that producing a separate interface document to then incorporate into the Comprehensive Plan. The Core Plan is not a required document described in RCW 36.70A and has not been updated as a part of the 2024 periodic update schedule. Page 5 of 11 Staff Member: Clark Date: 10/3/2025 M No.1 (File No. CPA25-0005) Incorporate updates to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Discussion As a result of the periodic update to the Comprehensive Plan, 23 parcels were incorrectly designated as Public/Quasi-Public Land Use. This neighborhood located off of I Street NE includes 23 residential structures with a zoning designation of R-2, Residential Low. Staff proposes CPA25-0005 to correct the land use designation to Residential Neighborhood Low. This change would allow conformance with the overlying zoning district and existing conditions of the neighborhood. FINDINGS OF FACT: Background Summary: 1. RCW 36.70A.130 (Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA)) provides for amendments to locally adopted GMA comprehensive plans. Except in limited circumstances as provided for in State law and City Code, comprehensive plan amendments shall be considered by the city legislative body no more frequently than once per year. 2. The City of Auburn processed eight (8) policy/text annual updates to be included with the Comprehensive Plan. Four (4) school district Capital Facilities Plans whose districts occur within the City of Auburn, the City of Auburn Capital Facilities Element, Housing Element, Housing Needs Assessment, and the removal of the City of Auburn Core Plan. These updates are proposed to be incorporated by reference in the current Capital Facilities Element, of the current Auburn Comprehensive Plan and are processed as Policy/Text (P/T) amendments and are captured by City File No. CPA25-0003 & CPA25-0006. 3. The City of Auburn proposes one (1) Land Use Map Amendment to the City's Comprehensive Land Use Map (City File No. CPA25-0005). 4. The environmental review decision under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the school district capital facilities plans were prepared separately by each school district acting as their own lead agency, as allowed by State law (State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)). 5. The environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the policy text amendments No. 5-7, and map amendment No. 1. City -initiated policy/text amendments resulted in a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) issued for the City -initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments on August 11 (City File No. SEP25-0013). The comment period ended at 5:00 p.m. August 251h, 2025, and the appeal period ended at 5:00 p.m. September 9`h, 2025. No comments on the proposed text amendments were received. 6. The environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for P/T No. 8. The City issued a DNS for P/T No. 8 on September 22"d, 2025 (City File No. SEP25-0016). The comment period ended at 5:00 p.m. October 71h, 2025. No comments on the proposed text amendments were received. Page 6 of 11 Staff Member: Clark Date: 10/3/2025 7. As provided in the City code, the Comprehensive Plan amendments are reviewed during a public hearing process before the City of Auburn Planning Commission, who then provides a recommendation to the City Council for final action which generally occurs, but is not required to, prior to the end of the year. 8. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed comprehensive plan amendments outlined in this staff report were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce and other state agencies for the required state review. The Washington State Department of Commerce acknowledged receipt on July 25`h, 2025, by Submittal ID No. 2025-S-9678 (CPA25-0003) and on August 22"d, 2025, by submittal ID No. 2025-S-9780 (CPA25-0006). No comments have been received from the Washington State Department of Commerce or other state agencies as of the writing of this report. A copy of the transmittal and acknowledgement is provided as No. 2024-S-7564 and ID No. 2024-S-7565 CONFORMANCE WITH THE CRITERIA FOR PLAN AMENDMENTS 1. The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent. Discussion Proposed changes identified in P/T Nos. 1-8 and M No.1 are intended to ensure alignment with the overarching goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and maintain internal consistency across its elements. P/T No. 1- No. 5 The acceptance of the School District's Capital Facilities Plans, along with revisions to the Capital Facilities Element, enables full integration of the district's growth and development targets. These updates also enhance coordination with the City's infrastructure planning to support future school sites and capital projects. P/T No. 6 — No. 7 Revisions to the Housing Element and Housing Needs Assessment align the City's planning framework with residential development targets established for 2044. These updates address an error in the Housing Need by Income and County Tables and Figure of the Housing Element and Housing Needs Assessment ensuring Auburn's growth targets are correct within the tables. P/T No. 8 The removal of the Core Plan as a reference document is recommended to prevent reliance on outdated or inaccurate information. Although its removal does not directly affect the Comprehensive Plan, it was not updated as part of the 2024 Periodic Update. However, the value statements of the Core Plan are still carried through the Comprehensive Plan updated in 2024. . M No. 1 Finally, the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Map is necessary to bring a specific neighborhood into conformance with its designated zoning district. This change resolves existing inconsistencies between residential and public land uses, promoting clarity, and regulatory alignment. Page 7 of 11 Staff Member: Clark Date: 10/3/2025 2. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased. Discussion Proposed changes outlined in P/T Nos. 1-7 and M No.1 identify key projects, goals, and policies aimed at enhancing and sustaining adequate public services throughout the City of Auburn. The Capital Facilities Plans submitted by the four school districts serving Auburn residents address the growing need for additional classrooms, service buildings, and educational facilities. These plans respond to projected population growth and are designed to maintain and improve the quality of educational services for Auburn's students. Updates to the Housing Needs Assessment and Housing Element incorporate regional affordable housing targets established by King and Pierce Counties. When paired with the City's Capital Facilities Element and Capital Facilities Plan, these revisions support a coordinated approach to planning and development, ensuring that public services keep pace with residential growth. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Map directly affects the types of services permitted within designated neighborhoods. The application of R-2 Residential Low and Residential Neighborhood Low zoning designations removes policy barriers to future development and enables continued public investment in alignment with residential land uses. P/T No. 8 does not directly affect service capacity. The Core Plan, previously used as a reference document for integrating studies into the Comprehensive Plan, is no longer necessary. As relevant studies are now appended directly to the Comprehensive Plan, a separate interface document is redundant and may be retired without impacting coordination of public services. 3. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid. Discussion As a result of updates to the Capital Facilities Plans (P/T Nos. 1-4), the information contained in the City's Capital Facilities Element, specifically the "Public Institutions" section (P/T No. 5) no longer reflected current conditions. Revisions to the Capital Facilities Element were necessary to restore internal consistency and ensure alignment with present-day infrastructure planning. P/T Nos. 6 and 7 address inaccuracies within in the Housing Need by Income and County table and figure Correcting these figures enables the City to more accurately plan for and deliver services and facilities that support affordable housing development, in accordance with regional growth targets and the planning policies of King and Pierce Counties. P/T No. 8 proposes the removal of the Core Plan as a reference document within the Comprehensive Plan. This recommendation stems from the consolidation of outdated information that no longer supports the City's adopted goals and policies. The Core Plan was not updated during the 2024 Periodic Update and retaining it as a reference, risks distorting future planning efforts by embedding obsolete data into the Comprehensive Plan. Page 8 of 11 Staff Member: Clark Date: 10/3/2025 M No. 1 corrects a mapping error that misclassified 23 parcels containing single -unit detached homes as Public/Quasi-Public, thereby conflicting with the underlying R-2 Residential Low zoning designation. The proposed amendment restores the appropriate land use designation of Residential Neighborhood Two, bringing the map into conformance with existing conditions and ensuring consistency with the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies. 4. A determination of change or lack of change in conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the specific section of the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed amendment. Discussion All proposed amendments reflect a clear determination of change in conditions or circumstances since the last update to the relevant sections of the Comprehensive Plan. P/T Nos. 1-4 propose updates to the Capital Facilities Plans submitted by the four school districts serving Auburn residents. • Auburn School District anticipates continued growth and expansion of educational services. • Dieringer School District seeks reconfiguration to address social constraints and the need for permanent facilities. • Federal Way Public Schools is evaluating future residential demand driven by the Federal Way Town Center and Link Light Rail expansion. • Kent School District is responding to declining enrollment and evolving student needs. P/T No. 5 addresses direct changes to project timelines and completion status and revises administrative language to guide future annual amendments to school district Capital Facilities Plans. P/T Nos. 6-7 revise affordable housing allocations in accordance with Vision 2050 and Countywide Planning Policies. These updates ensure the City remains compliant with regional housing targets and accurately reflects growth projections in the Housing Element and Housing Needs Assessment. P/T No. 8 recommends removal of the Core Plan, an advisory document that was not updated during the 2024 Periodic Update and therefore contains outdated information. M No. 1 corrects a mapping error that misclassified 23 parcels containing single unit detached homes as Public/Quasi-Public. The proposed re -designation to Residential Neighborhood Two restores consistency with the R-2 Residential Low zoning district and supports the preservation of neighborhood character and permitted land uses. 5. If applicable, a determination that a question of consistency exists between the comprehensive plan and Chapter 36.70A RC W, the countywide planning policies for either King and/or Pierce County, as appropriate, and Vision 2050. Discussion Among the proposed amendments, P/T Nos. 6-7 are the only text revisions that directly address policy consistency between the City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan and the legislative frameworks Page 9 of 11 Staff Member: Clark Date: 10/3/2025 established by the King and Pierce Countywide Planning Policies and Vision 2050. Specifically, updates to Table 1 of the Housing Element and Figure 34 of the Housing Needs Assessment currently misrepresent the total affordable housing allotment required to meet regional housing needs through 2044. These amendments correct that discrepancy and ensure alignment with adopted regional growth strategies. In contrast, P/T Nos. 1-5, 8, and M No. 1 do not resolve direct inconsistencies with regional planning policies. Instead, these amendments focus on correcting internal documentation, updating public service provisions, and improving alignment with existing conditions and administrative processes within the City's planning framework. 6. If the request is to change the land use designation of a specific property on the comprehensive land use map, the applicant must demonstrate one of the following: a. The current land use designation was clearly made in error or due to an oversight, b. The proposed land use designation is adjacent to property having a similar or compatible designation, or other conditions are present to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties; c. There has been a change in conditions since the current land use designation came into effect. Discussion M No. 1 represents the sole amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Map and addresses a mapping error introduced during the periodic update process. The proposed correction redesignates 23 parcels from Public/Quasi-Public to Residential Neighborhood Two, restoring consistency with the existing R-2 Residential Low zoning and the established character of the neighborhood. This amendment is not based on a change in external conditions since the adoption of the current designation. Rather, it corrects a mis-designation that conflicts with both the zoning district and permitted land uses. The proposes designation aligns with the existing zoning, character of the neighborhood, and with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Procedural Steps: 7. The proposed text amendment (zoning code update) has been discussed with the Planning Commission previously at a special meeting on September 16, 2025. 8. Pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A, the text and map amendments were transmitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce on July 25th, 2025 and August 22"a 2025. The 60-day notice period ended on October 21 st, 2025. 9. ACC 14.22.100 outlines the public hearing requirements by planning commission. Amendments to the Periodic Comprehensive Plan generally comply with "area -wide" requirements. Page 10 of 11 Staff Member: Clark Date: 10/3/2025 A. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on all proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be given pursuant to Chapter 1.27 ACC and, at a minimum, include the following: 1. For site -specific plan map amendments: a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing; b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet of the proposed map amendment request, not less than 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing; 2. For area -wide plan map amendments: a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing; b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within the area subject to the proposed amendment; c. Notice shall be posted in at least two conspicuous locations in the area subject to the proposed amendment not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of the public hearing. B. Notwithstanding the above, the director may expand the minimum noticing provisions noted above as deemed necessary. C. Planning Commission Recommendation. The planning commission shall conduct a public hearing on all potential comprehensive plan amendments and shall make and forward a recommendation on each to the city council. The planning commission shall adopt written findings and make a recommendation consistent with those findings to the city council. D. The city council, if it elects to amend the comprehensive plan, shall adopt written findings and adopt said amendments by ordinance. E. State Review. All comprehensive plan amendments considered by the planning commission shall be forwarded for state agency review consistent with RCW 36.70A.106. F. Any appeal of an amendment to the comprehensive plan shall be made in accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW. 10. A Notice of Public Hearing (NOH) will be issued on October 10, 2025. Pursuant to ACC 14.22.100, the following methods of noticing for the Planning Commission public hearing were conducted: a. The NOH was published in the Seattle Times on October 10, 2025. b. The NOH was posted in two general public locations (City Hall and City Annex). c. The NOH was posted on City's Public Land Use Notice webpage. d. In regard to CPA25-0005 Comprehensive Land Use Map updates, a mailed notice was delivered to properties within a 300-foot radius of the affected properties. 11. A public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission on October 21, 2025. EXHIBITS: 1. PowerPoint Presentation 2. P/T No. 1 — 8 Text Amendments 3. M No. 1 Land Use Map Amendment Page 11 of 11 PLANNING COMMISSION 2025 CITY -INITIATED ANNUAL AMENDMENTS PRESENTED BY GABRIEL CLARK, PLANNER II OCTOBER 21, 2025 AUBURN VALUES S E R V I C E ENVIRONMENT E C O N O M Y CHARACTER SUSTAINAB ILITY W E L L N E S S CELEBRATION The 2025 Comprehensive Plan Amendment packet includes eight (8) proposed Policy/Text (P/T) amendments and one (1) Land Use Map update (M). P/T No. 1 Auburn School District ■ P/T No. 2 Dieringer School District ■ P/T No. 3 Kent School District ■ P/T No. 4 Federal Way Public Schools P/T No. 5 Capital Facilities Element P/T No. 6 Housing Element P/T No. 7 Housing Needs Assessment P/T No. 8 Removal of Core Plan M No. 1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Update SERVICE . ENVIRONMENT . ECONOMY . CHARACTER . SUSTAINABILITY . WELLNESS . CELEBRATION AUBUR►J scNDDE plsR¢T Auburn School District No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2025 through 2031 IlII Ills I'.��� T.—M Pnrk Elemonlary SC+ioW - 2023 Adopted by the Auburn School Distncf Hoard of Directors on June 9. 2025 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2025-2031 `+- Dieringer School District 19201 TO -Ave E, Lake Tapp,, WA FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPRAL FACILTUES PL FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Mpy 12.2025 BDARD OF EDUCATION D, Jemifc, J.—Pr idrna Trolly Past, Vice PNsidelll Lltekhhr Phillips. Legislrliae kepracnla!e Queen Meets, W IAA P.LVr--.1c or loan Mane Miephy. Bwrd Difor SUPERINTE1,1DF.N7 Dr. Deni Prei Her P,q..dby: Rob Bn-,,Chief Fir&OpmbsQfF- 1-rer l Th..-FS.ik rn1 &DDirtmSr,phC., I l Pmjtr<tts 4& KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 1% EQUI I EXCELLENCE .IMMUNITY Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan 2024-2025 through 2030-2031 June 202S Rent School 0-rit W. 415 120335E 256' Street RenL Washington 9W304"3 (253) 373-7526 WARD of DIRECTORS Ms. Meghin Mayd, Ihe,Wen! Mr, Donald Cook. Vke hesldent Mr, Tim Clark. LK4slati,e 0epretenbtlre Mr. AM, Sour. Direttor 11, Te G,m,,D�IMOI ADMINISTRATION 1F 1Vey Superintendent of Sch-b Dr. Wade 0arlblger. DeWW Superintendent Dave 5UM d. 6,.W . Dlrecic, operniona Raul Palunl, 1-1m, Di,-. M.— Gordon Coo" nect Da o1 F-il tin Brett Scribner, Amstant Dlrecter Capful ft*as SERVICE a ENVIRONMENT a ECONOMY a CHARACTER a SUSTAINABILITY a WELLNESS a CELEBRATION Figure 34 - Housing Need by Income and County Supply 28.049 1.076 (2019) 237 8.029 8.075 4A27 3.302 2,903 58 King Net New 12,000 1,543 Need (2044) S12 309 616 1,146 1.2" 6,275 2.293 Supply 3,963 0 (2019) 33 134 493 1,141 680 1,482 8 Pierce Net New 112 14 Need (2044) 20 21 16 7 6 27 7 Total Not New Need (2044) 12.112 1,557 892 330 632 1,153 236 6,302 2.300 Source: King County Ordinance 79660, Countywide Planning Policies; Pierce County Ordinance 2023 22s, Countywide Planning Policies SERVICE . ENVIRONMENT . ECONOMY . CHARACTER e SUSTAINABILITY . WELLNESS . CELEBRATION COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP UPDATE Recommendation Staff requests Planning Commission to recommend approval to City Council of the 2025 City Initiated Annual Amendments P/T No. 1 - P/T No. 8 and Land Use Map Amendment M No. 1.