Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ITEM 2 REZ10-0001 (PART 1)
Exhibit 1 ' Number of Pages 7 CITY OF AUBURN AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM WASHINGTON Agenda Subject: Green River Community College Trades Project; Date: July 6, 2011 Application No: REZ10-0001 Department: Planning and Attachments: See Exhibit List Budget Impact: N/A Development Administrative Recommendation: Hearing Examiner recommend to the City Council approval of the rezone. Background Summary: OWNER/ APPLICANT: Property Owner: City of Auburn, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 Applicant: Green River Community College, 12401 SE 320th Street, Auburn, WA 98092 REQUEST: Rezone of approximately 9 acres from R-5 (Residential 5 du/acre) to Institutional. LOCATION: At the intersection of SE 320th Street and 124th Avenue SE; Parcel No: 0921059020 EXISTING LAND USE: City park; includes ball fields and tennis courts COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Public/Quasi-Public SEPA STATUS: A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance was issued June 9, 2011. Comment deadline was June 23, 2011 and the appeal deadline is July 14, 2011. Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions: ❑ Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: ® Building ❑ M&O ❑ Airport ❑ Finance ❑ Cemetery ❑ Mayor ❑ Hearing Examiner ❑ Municipal Serv. ❑ Finance ® Parks ❑ Human Services ❑ Planning & CD ® Fire ® Planning ❑ Park Board ❑ Public Works ❑ Legal ❑ Police ❑ Planning Comm. ❑ Other ® Public Works ❑ Human Resources ❑ Information Services Action: Committee Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Council Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Call for Public Hearing Referred to Until Tabled Until Councilmember: Staff: Chamberlain Meeting Date: July 20, 2011 Item Number: AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED v Agenda Subject: Green River Community College Trades Project; Date: July 6, 2011 Application No: REZ10-0001 The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the surrounding properties are (include map as shown below): Comprehensive Plan Zoning Land Use Project Site Public/Quasi Public R-5 Residential 5 du/acre City Park North Single Family Residential R-5 Residential 5 du/acre Vacant Land and Da care South Public/Quasi Public Institutional Green River Community College Campus East Single Family Residential R-5 Residential 5 du/acre Single Family Residential West Single Family Residential R-7 Residential 7 du/acre Single Family Residential N f-o~1o590661 Oszto59oz1 L_J L-1 1059147 0921059095 °er0921059065 713791TRCT 092 10~9p1 I / . 09210215 ' ' 0921059104 ! ti,~ry y . 1621059006 ° Green River - Community C Ilege~'~90m f/f II r ^i 1521059010 d~ I" 1521059011 162105W06 Dry ❑ Zoning ;r • C7 C1 Light Commercial District o ❑C2 Central Business District 0 ■C3 Heavy Commercial District CN Neighborhood Shopping District ❑DUC Downtown Urban Center 1'I n [3EP Environmental Park District I Institutional Use District 1059011 1621059026 Lakeland Hills South PUD 14P, rC LF Airport Landing Field District f :MI Light Industrial District OM2 Heavy Industrial District ]Pi Public Use District ❑PUD Planned Unit Development RI Residential 1 DU/Acre RS Residential 5 DU/Acre ;R7 Residential7 DU/Acre ❑ R10 Residential 10 DU/Acre ❑ R20 Residential 20 DU/Acre RC Residential conservancy ■ RMHC Residential Manufactured/Mobile Home Units O RO Residential Office District ® RO-H. Residential Office District (Hospital) Page 2 of 7 Agenda Subject: Green River Community College Trades Project; Date: July 6, 2011 Application No: REZ10-0001 FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The applicant proposes to construct a new 65,000 square foot single story building that will be for Green River Community College (GRCC) trades classes such as carpentry, automobile repair, and welding. The subject site is approximately 9 acres and located at the intersection of SE 320th Street and 124th Avenue SE. The site is currently developed as a public park that includes baseball fields, tennis courts, and playground. 2. A rezone is required for the proposed Trades Building to allow for the proposed uses on the subject property. The subject site is currently zoned R-5 (5 du/acre) and the proposal is to rezone the subject site to Institutional. The comprehensive plan land use designation for the subject site is Public/Quasi- Public. 3. The subject site is currently owned by the City of Auburn. Green River Community College (GRCC) and the City of Auburn have negotiated a land exchange that will transfer the subject site to GRCC and property owned by GRCC just north of the subject site to the City of Auburn for a new park site. A Memorandum of Understanding for this land exchange was executed between the City of Auburn and GRCC on February 5, 2010. The City of Auburn is working on a master plan for the new park site and soliciting input from the community. 4. The subject site was annexed into the City of Auburn for municipal purposes through Ordinance No. 5983, effective January 27, 2006, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.300. 5. GRCC was annexed into the City of Auburn through Ordinance No. 6121, effective January 1, 2008, as part of the Lea Hill Annexation Area. GRCC campus occupies approximately 212 acres south of SE 320th Street. The majority of the campus property is leased from the Department of Natural Resources. 6. Pursuant to Auburn City Code Section 18.64.020(B) the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner is authorized to conduct a duly noticed public hearing and render a recommendation on the rezone application. The Hearing Examiner's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for a decision. The City Council's decision is appealable to the Superior Court of the applicable county government. The public hearing notice was published on July 6, 2011 in the Seattle Times, posted at the subject site on July 7, 2011, and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property (Exhibit 6). 7. Pursuant to ACC 18.68.030 and 18.68.040, all applications for a rezone shall be reviewed by the planning director prior to the scheduling of a public hearing. After review of the application, the director shall determine which of the following two processes should occur to properly hear the rezone: a. If the rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan, then the hearing examiner shall conduct a public hearing on the rezone and make a recommendation to the city council pursuant to ACC 18.66.170. This application is consistent with the comprehensive plan, as outlined below in the conclusions. 8. The subject property is within the City's Water and Sanitary sewer service areas. 9. The applicant's report: GRCC Trades and Industry Facility Critical Areas Report prepared by Keith Fabing, Inc., dated August 6, 2010 identifies that the subject site has one wetland located at the SE corner of the site and an off-site wetland to the north, its buffer impacts the subject site. The onsite wetland is categorized as a Class III wetland with a minimum 25 foot buffer. The off-site wetland has Page 3 of 7 Agenda Subject: Green River Community College Trades Project; Date: July 6, 2011 ' Application No: REZ10-0001 also been categorized as a Class III wetland with a minimum 25 foot buffer. The proposed project does not impact any buffer or wetland. The on-site wetland has been fenced at the 25 foot buffer line and appropriately signed as part of the improvements to 124th Avenue SE. The off-site wetland buffer that impacts the subject site will require fencing and signage to prevent intrusion into the. The proposed project does not impact any buffer or wetland area. (Exhibit 12) 10. The subject site is relatively flat with the steepest slope at 3%. Detailed quantities of cut and fill have not been determined at this stage of the project. Based on preliminary design plans, cuts of five to ten feet would occur along a portion of the west access driveway and fills up to approximately six feet would occur along the edge of the building on SE 320th Street. 11. The applicant's report: Trades Replacement Complex Green River Community College Transportation Study, prepared by Transportation Engineering Northwest LLC, dated August 5, 2010, revised January 3, 2011 and May 13, 2011, and the trip generation analysis revised May 12, 2011 determined the trip generation for the proposed project and GRCC campus has decreased since 2003 and 2010. The trip generation rate for the GRCC campus is 2.11 per 1,000 gross floor area in the AM peak hour and 1.25 per 1,000 gross floor area in the PM peak hour. Frontage improvement will be required for the subject site frontage along SE 320th Street and 124th Avenue SE (which were completed in 2010). Mitigation proposed by the applicant also includes an internal trail system through the subject site that will connect into the City's future parking north of the subject site. The discussion about traffic impact fees on Page 29 and 30 of the revised traffic impact study is for reference purposes only. The City of Auburn will review the costs for the 124th Avenue SE improvements made by GRCC and then determine the eligibility of a potential traffic impact fee credit. The proposed project also impacts the intersection of 124th Avenue SE/SE 312th Street (City's TIP Project #41). The applicant is responsible for a proportional share of the improvements at this intersection based on the project's impact to the intersection. • 2015 total entering volumes of 1,998 trips; 23 trips are new project trips and the proportional share is 1.2% The proposed project impacts the intersection of 124th Avenue SE/SE 314th Street and 124th Avenue SE/SE 316th Street. • 2015 total directional volumes on 124th Avenue SE of 1,368 trips of which 23 trips are new project trips equates to a proportional share of 1.7% A parking management program is recommended to be developed, submitted prior to building permit approval, and implemented for the Trades Replacement Complex. (Exhibit 16) 12. King County Metro Route 180 currently serves Green River Community College and Lea Hill. An existing bus stop is located along the subject site frontage on SE 320th Street. 13. A geotechnical report was prepared by GeoEngineers dated June 3, 2010, for the proposed Trades Project. The report concluded that there are no unstable soils onsite and provided recommendations on designing the building foundation, wall foundations, and infiltration rates. (Exhibit 9) 14. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted for the project by GeoEngineers and the report is dated May 19, 2010. A small residential building used to exist on the subject property and utilized an oil-burning heating system. Conclusions of the report determined there is a low to moderate risk of soil, groundwater, or surface water contamination at the subject property in areas where historical heating oil underground storage tanks (UST) may still be present. If an UST is Page 4 of 7 Agenda Subject: Green River Community College Trades Project; Date: July 6, 2011 Application No: REZ10-0001 discovered during excavation, then property removal procedures, soil testing, and notification to Department of Ecology will be required. (Exhibit 10) 15. A preliminary storm drainage report was prepared by Reid Middleton, dated August 2010. The subject site is within Ground Water Protection Zone 4 which means best management practices shall be implemented during construction for water resource protection. (Exhibit 13) 16. Noise is regulated by Auburn City Code Chapter 8.28. The applicant's report: Green River Community College Trades Building. Noise Study prepared by The Greenbusch Group, dated August 20, 2010 analyzed the noise impacts from the proposed Trades Building. (Exhibit 14) 17. The applicant's report: Cultural Resources Review for Lea Hill Park and Martin Property prepared by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. dated June 16, 2010 concluded there are no buildings or structures 50 years or older that require further study and consideration as significant historical properties. (Exhibit 15) 18. Green River Community College conducted an outreach program with the adjacent residential neighborhoods to the proposed Trades Project. The outreach program included a series of three initial neighborhood meetings, which were held on consecutive weeks in April 2010 and a follow-up meeting held on June 23, 2010. Each meeting included a presentation about the proposal, a question/answer session, and additional opportunity to review the presentation materials and discuss concerns with the project team. The applicant took the comments received at the three initial meetings, incorporated revisions to the site and building design, then presented those changes at the June 2010 follow-up meeting. The College held additional community meetings on August 24, 2010, January 13, 2011 and May 24, 2011. (Exhibit 17) 19. A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) was issued on June 9, 2011 by SEPA Responsible Official. The comment period ended June 23, 2011 with no comments received. The appeal period ends July 14, 2011. (Exhibit 7) CONCLUSIONS: ACC Chapter 18.68 provides certain criteria for approval of a rezone: 1. The rezone must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment The subject property was annexed into the City of Auburn for municipal purposes effective January 27, 2006 pursuant to Ordinance No. 5983. For those properties lying within the Lea Hill Area and not zoned by the City prior to annexation the property shall assume the LHR-1 designation upon annexation (Ordinance No. 5354). As the City did not zone the subject property prior to annexation, the property was automatically zoned LHR-1 Lea Hill Single Family Residential District (now R-5, Residential 5 du/acre). The proposed rezone by GRCC from R-5 (Residential 5 du/acre) to Institutional is consistent with the Auburn Comprehensive Plan. In fact, the current zone of the property R-5 is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. In researching historic Comprehensive Land Use Maps, the City determined the subject property has been designated Public/Quasi-Public at least since 2005. Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan, Institutional is an implementing zone for the Public/Quasi-Public land use designation. The purpose of the Public/Quasi-Public land use designation is to designate areas of significant size needed to provide public and quasi-public Page 5 of 7 Agenda Subject: Green River Community College Trades Project; Date: July 6, 2011 Application No: REZ10-0001 services to the community. Compatible uses appropriately designated under this category include schools. Policy CF-63 states: "Public and quasi-public facilities which attract a large number of visitors (City Hall, museums, libraries, educational, permit or license offices, and health or similar facilities) should be sited in areas which are accessible (within % mile) by transit." The subject site is served by transit. There is an existing King County Metro bus stop located on the south side of the subject site serving the Green River Community College campus. . Policy LU-5 states: "Link together regionally significant land uses such as the SuperMall, Green River Community College, Boeing, Emerald Downs, and commercial uses on Auburn Way..." The proposed rezone will allow Green River Community College to move towards their goal of relocating the Trades Programs at the subject site. Green River Community College is a regionally significant land use that provides education in the trades industry for the community and provides an educated work force for local businesses. Rezoning the subject site to Institutional is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Map, the Auburn Comprehensive Plan policies, and implements the Public/Quasi-Public land use designation. 2. The rezone must be initiated by someone other than the City in order for the Hearing Examiner to consider the request. Staff Comment The rezone has been initiated by Green River Community College with the consent of the City of Auburn, who is the property owner. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the application, Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of the staff report, staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner recommend to the City Council approval of the rezone no conditions of approval. Staff reserves the right to supplement the record of the case to respond to matters and information raised subsequent to the writing of this report EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit 1 Staff Report Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map Exhibit 3 Application Materials Exhibit 4 Site Plan Exhibit 5 Notice of Application Exhibit 6 Public Hearing Notice with affidavits Exhibit 7 Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance Exhibit 8 Expanded Environmental Checklist Exhibit 8 Aerial Photograph Exhibit 9 Geotechnical Report, prepared by GeoEngineers, dated June 3, 2010 Exhibit 10 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by GeoEngineers, dated May 19, 2010 Exhibit 11 Air Quality Memorandum, prepared by Environ, dated August 13, 2010 Exhibit 12 Critical Areas Report, prepared by Keith Fabing, Inc., dated August 6, 2010 Exhibit 13 Preliminary Storm Drainage Report, prepared by Reid Middleton, dated August 2010 Page 6 of 7 Agenda.Subject: Green River Community College.Trades Project;, Date:, July 6, 2011 Application No: REZ10-0001 ,Exhibit 14 Noise Study, prepared by The Greenbusch Group, dated August 201 2010 Exhibit 15 Cultural .Resources Review, prepared' by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc., dated June 16, 20,10. Exhibit 16 TranspoItation:Impact Study; prepared by Transportation Engineering Northwest, dated August 5; 2010 and revised January.8., 2011. and May 13, 2011 Exhibit 17 Neighborhood Meeting Summary'lnformation Page 7 of 7 Figure 1 - Location i . I 1...... - wr, 5E ~t~ ~t I : ! I I 7 I I I I . _ I rades I a: s I ~ ..5E 9.i2th 5t i, C~ 4;, Bulidin LeaHill;RdSE k I I 1 s€7d,5i. 4rsth - _ . ; Sit . _..u. ^ a - o 1 5E3ibth5t ~B Pl si . , SE32bt11,5t n.. I - ° - ! ..I. ; ~...i._.. i4 i E)Aa n. C:RCC I I I O1l_]411 ~ rr ~+Ut)UFr~ ~f ~ ~ I ; __I = I' l I ~i3rn and F dak~ 11o1m 3.d 1 - I I I L .-I I,, 164 t, j;l ~ £ SEI GR C Trades Building Vicinity Plan a~Mm,~e) Green River Community College - 2 Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist s QIFY wAS >~lvOON Planning, Building, and Community Department MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION- PLANNING APPLICATIONS Project Name GRCC Trades Building Date September 9, 2010 Parcel No(s) 092105-9020 Site Address 32401 SE 320th St Legal Description (attached separate sheet if necessary) see attached Applicant Name: Green River Community College - Sam Ball Mailing Address: 12401 SE 320th St, Auburn; WA 98092 Telephone and Fax: 253-288-3316, 253-288-3455 Email: sball@greenriver.edu Signature: Owner (if more than one attach another sheet) Name: same as applicant Mailing Address: Telephone and Fax: Email: Signature: Engineer/Architecture/Other Name: Sara Wilder, S.M. Stemper Architects Mailing Address: 4000 Delridge Way SW, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98106 Telephone and Fax: 206-624-2777, 206-624-2973 Email: sara smstem er.com Description of Proposed Action: The proposal consists of a rezone and administrative use permit to allow development of a 65,000 square foot Trades facility on the 9-acre site. Type of Application Required Check all that Apply) Administrative Appeal* ✓ Rezone (site specific)* Area Wide Administrative Use Permit* Short Plat Annexation* Special Exception* Boundary Line Adjustment Special Home Occupation Permit* Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Text or Map)* Substantial Shoreline Development* Conditional Use Permit* Surface Mining Permit* Critical Areas Variance* Temporary Use Permit Development Agreement* Variance* Environmental Review (SEPA)* *Please note that public notification is Final Plat required. A separate cost is charged Preliminary Plat* for the signs. City prepares signs but PUD Site Plan Approval applicant responsible for sign posting. Reasonable Use Exce tion* Page 1 of 2 ~A AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED CITYOF,.,.- WASHINGTON planning, Building, and Community Department LETTER FROM PROPERTY OWNER GRANTING AUTHORIZATION TO ACT (A copy of this letter must be submitted for each property owner involved) 1, Sam Ball , being duly sworn declare that I am the owner of the property (PROPERTY OWNER) Involved in the application. I hereby grant Sara Wilder of S.M. Stemper Architects to act on my behalf. I further declare that all statements, answers, and information herein submitted is in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date Signature z-~ Address Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3 day of 5eP-~~'~ Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, ~L Residing at 10231 S a `I~~h K2.t~ bV ~0 Notary Public State of Washington ANNA T LESINSKI My Appointment Expires Mar 13, 2013 Page 2 of 2 AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED i s 1~. j. ! 7 February 5, 2010 M i i MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) 1 BETWEEN THE CITY OF AUBURN" AND GREEN. RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE REGARDING LEA HILL PARK I Recitals 7 1. City. of Auburn ("City") owns Lea Hill Park. The Park is an 8.97 acre site, located on S. 320`' Stand 12401 Ave. in the Lea Hill neighborhood. The site is currently developed for a softball and-baseball diamond, play structure, tennis courts, and associated parking.. It is primarily used by GRCC for intercollegiate sports activities. The existing park needs, significant improvement, as identified in the City'.s -adopted Parks & a Recreation Plan, and does not serve neighborhood needs well. 2. The City acquired Lea Hill Park from King. County in 2002. The deed contains a covenant that the property will be used in perpetuity for park or recreation purposes unless other equivalent lands or facilities are received in exchange and the replacement lands or facilities are likewise to be used in perpetuity for park or recreation purposes. I 3. Green River Community College ("College") and the Green River College Foundation ("Foundation") own three parcels of land collectively referred to as the Martin property. The Martin property is a 7.15 acre site located on 124th Ave. between Lea Hill Park and 316`h Street. A residence and child-care facility occupy in property to the j a portion of the site. The Foundation is in the. process of•donating its interest in the Mart - College. 4. The College is a primary user of Lea Hill Park and has made improvements to the facility. The College and the City cooperatively maintain 'Lea Hill Park. I 1 5. The College is initiating a Campus Master Plan with the City, to plan for the long-term growth and capital needs of the campus. q 6. The City and College desire to exchange the aforementioned properties in furtherance of the long-terms interests of the City and College. Agreement Based on the foregoing, the City and College have reached an agreement in principle, as follows. j 1. The City will transfer ownership of Lea Hill Park to the College in exchange for the Martin property and additional improvements described below. Together, property and improvements transferred to the City will be of equal value and function to the existing Lea: Hill Park property. The value of the property and improvements will be established by appraisal(s) performed byan.MAI appraiser. The City and College will each hold an equal and undivided interest in the new park constructed` on the Martin property. 2. The new park will be subject to the aforementioned covenant regarding use and replacement, and the College and City agree to be bound by the terms of this covenant. i 1 1 i " f , r T' 1 3. The College will reconfigure the.boundaries of the lots that comprise the Martin property to facilitate its transfer and use as. a park and. to permit:. continued operation of the child care facility. The College will demolish the existing residence on the property. The consolidated parcels exclusive of the childcare center total 5.38 acre. Paragraph 3 costs are to be included, and are not in addition to, the $1.5 million referenced in i i paragraph 4. 4. The College will improve the Martin property to function as.a City park and recreation facility. Improvements will be consistent with an approved Lea Hill Park Master Plan to be developed by the City of Auburn. The College contribution for paragraph 3 and 4 improvements is not to exceed $1.5 million. j 5. Park Design. The City will serve as the lead entity for the Lea Hill Park Master Plan and will work with GRCC and the community on a conceptual -park design. GRCC will participate in any meetings related to this process. The City will take the steps necessary to revise its Park Recreation Plan to be consistent with the transfer of property and development of the Martin property for a park. 6. If necessary, based on the design of the new park, the City and College will develop a use agreement that addresses public and College use of the new park facilities. j 7. If athletic fields are-constructed on site that the college makes use of, the City and College will share } maintenance responsibilities for the new, park and will develop a joint maintenance agreement. i 8. The City and College will each maintainliability insurance regarding use of the. park. The College, as a state agency is self-insured. Upon request, the College will provide a Certificate of Self Insurance to the city. 1 9. Environmental Conditions. Prior to the transfer contemplated by this agreement, the City and College will each, conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and a cultural/historic resource survey of their respective properties and will disclose the findings of those studies. In addition, the parties acknowledge that t t wetlands are; located on the Lea Hill Park and Martin properties and that future development may require mitigation pursuant to City regulations. 10. Good Faith /Limitations. Both parties shall apply.their best efforts and act in good, faith to fulfill the provisions of this agreement. This MOU is.preliminary and non-binding and is not a commitment to. conclude the contemplated transaction.. The ultimate transfer of property and use of facilities must be approved by the Auburn- City Council and'must-further be approved by KingCounty. to assure, compliance with applicable park land deed covenants. No liability shall be associated with failure to conclude the J transaction. I Executed, this 5`h day of February, 2010. F o, Aub n. For Green River Com ity College: a Lr Peter B. Lewis, Mayor, City of Auburn Richard A. Rutkowski, President, G.R.C.C. t a 1 r i MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN Page 2 i THE CITY OF AUBURN AND GREEN RIVER , COMMUNITY COLLEGE REGARDING LEA HILL PARK 3 i APPLICANT'S ATTESTATION I, Sam Ball , being duly sworn, attest that the information contained in the application for a rezone and administrative use permit for the Green River Community College Trades and Industry Facility submitted to the City of Auburn, is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signed, Dom` Date / ` o Printed Name/Title JqtAu aL-9 L-4 r--,ct C L Address Le ~Z2a2 C, Q3 U Subscribed and. sworn to before me this 13 day of 2010. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, Uhl . q-&~k 3 Residing at 16 2'31 5L- a Ljb-a` k4-.4,+ VII A-- 9 W o NotAq Pubiln' state of W4016ptcn ANNA T LESINSK OY'Af~ntment Expires Meg 13; `118 APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY WITH AUBURN DECISION CRITERIA FOR A REZONE AND ADMINSTRATIVE USE PERMIT 1. Introduction Green River Community College (GRCC) is proposing a rezone and grant of an administrative use permit for an approximate 9-acre site in the Lea Hill neighborhood of the City of Auburn. The site would be used to construct an approximate 65,000 square foot building to accommodate relocation and expansion of the College's existing Trades & Industry program (Trades). This document, which is required as part of the applications for the requested actions, contains the applicant's statement of the consistency of the proposal with applicable decision criteria (rezone and administrative use permit), zoning code requirements and the Comprehensive Plan. Green River Community College The applicant, Green River Community College, is part of Washington State's system of thirty-four Community and Technical Colleges. The College is an agency of the state and is governed by a Board of Trustees. GRCC established its Auburn campus in 1966; it currently operates branch campuses in Kent and Enumclaw. It also operates a center in downtown Auburn. GRCC provides instruction in a variety of academic, professional and technical programs and provides continuing education. Enrollment at the Auburn campus is approximately 6,000 students (full time equivalents/FTE) and there are 729 employees, including 137 full-time faculty. Most students commute from surrounding areas of south King County. A limited number of rental housing units are provided for students in the Campus Corner apartments, located adjacent to the campus on the east side of 124th Ave SE and SE 320th Street. The College campus was annexed to the City in 2008 along with the broader Lea Hill neighborhood. On February 5th, 2010, the College and the City executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that provides a framework for acquisition of the Lea Hill Park site 1 a 1 1 ' i i J d by the College, transfer of an adjacent parcel of land owned by the College to the City a (Martin property), and relocation and reconstruction of a new City park (Lea Hill Community Park) on this adjacent property. The Auburn Parks Department recently began public outreach and conceptual planning for the new park. The College's rezone I and administrative use proposals are key elements for effectuating the intent of the MOU. Trades & Industry Program The Trades program consists of instruction in carpentry and manufacturing, automotive and auto body repair, and welding. The existing Trades complex on the Green River Community College campus is housed in five separate buildings, totaling approximately 42,574 square feet. These buildings were constructed in the 1960's, are in i a deteriorated condition, and are in need of replacement or rehabilitation to support the . existing program. There are currently 8 faculty and 172 FTE students enrolled in the program. Initial design and permitting of the new Trades facility is occurring in 2011, and construction is anticipated to commence in 2013. Design is still in the early, conceptual stage. Site Plan & Building Concept The new Trades facility is proposed on the 9-acre site of what is currently Lea Hill Park, located on SE 320th Street and 124th Ave. SE, directly north of the existing campus entrance. The new Trades facility would consist of two buildings, connected by an entry canopy, approximately 65,000 square feet in area (excluding parking). In addition, approximately 10,000 square feet of covered, exterior program space is included. The total development footprint, including parking, would occupy approximately 222,000 square feet. Approximately 43 percent of the site (168,733 square feet) would be undeveloped and retained in wetlands and landscaping. The new facility would accommodate approximately 12 faculty and 291 FTE students. Compared to the existing facility and program, the net increase equates to . approximately 22,426 square feet, 119 FTE students and 4 faculty members. The increase in building area would provide more generous space for programs and does not reflect a directly proportionate increase in students, faculty and activities. Programs 2 would operate on week days (Monday through Friday), and evenings until 10 PM Monday through Thursday. The Trades rezone proposal represents an approximate 9-acre, or 4.2 percent, increase to the existing 215-acre GRCC campus located within the City of Auburn. The approximate 22,426 square foot net increase in the size of the Trades facility represents an approximate 4 percent increase to the existing amount of developed building space on campus (554,582 square feet). II. Community Outreach In conjunction with its planning for the site, the College developed an outreach program to provide the surrounding neighborhood with information about its plans for the new Trades facility, to answer questions, and to address concerns. Although the neighborhood review meeting requirement of ACC 18.02.130 does not apply to the proposal, the College voluntarily developed a program that meets the same intent and contained the same elements. Meeting materials is contained in Section 3 of the application. The objectives of the outreach program were to engage the community early in the design process, and to provide a forum for answering questions and recording concerns. The outreach program included a series of three initial neighborhood meetings, which were held on consecutive weeks in April, 2010, and a follow-up meeting held on June 23, 2010. The initial meetings were advertised through an article in the Auburn Reporter, mailing postcards to over 1,300 residents in the surrounding area, and through direct contact with several neighbors and neighborhood association members. Mailing lists were obtained from the City of Auburn. Information about the meetings and the Trades proposal was also posted on the GRCC website. The format of the three meetings in April included various stations with information about the initial concepts for site planning and building design, traffic and landscaping issues, the Trades program and associated college activities including campus safety. A station was also requested and made available to a representative of the Rainier Ridge Neighborhood Association. The meetings were led by a professional facilitator. Each meeting included a presentation about the proposal by representatives of 3 4 7 1 i the College administration and its design team, a question and answer session, and an additional opportunity to review presentation materials and discuss concerns with a individual members of the design team. Questions and comments could also be provided 1 on comment forms available at the meetings, or via email or letter. All questions and j comments were recorded and are summarized in Section 3 of the application and are included on GRCC's website. Average attendance at the meetings was approximately i _ five, excluding College and design team representatives. A follow up community meeting was held on June 23, 2010. The meeting was 1 ' led by a professional facilitator. Notice was provided via an announcement in the j Auburn Reporter, mailings/phone calls to participants of the initial meetings, and notice on the College's website. The purpose of the meeting was to update interested neighbors on the progress of site planning, building design, and environmental analysis. Sign in sheets, meeting materials and a list of comments and questions are included in Section 3 of the application. III. Consistency with Rezone Criteria The rezone criteria discussed below are identified in the City of Auburn's information handout identifying the submittal requirements for rezones. The zoning code does not identify specific criteria for zoning map amendments, other than hearing procedures (ACC 18.68). A. Consistency with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. 1. Comprehensive Plan. The site is currently designated "Public/Quasi Public" on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. This designation is intended to apply to "public uses of a significant extent" as well as to developed parks. Uses considered compatible with the designation include "industrial and commercial uses which are affiliated with and managed by educational institutions for vocational educational purposes." The major criterion for designation is that such areas be compatible with the character of the adjacent uses. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Institutional Use (I) zone as an appropriate implementing zone for the Public/Quasi-Public land use 4 designation. The Public/Quasi -Public land use designation and Institutional zoning classification currently apply to the GRCC campus. Green River Community College is an agency of the state, and a community college is a public use requiring significant land area. The proposed Trades facility is an educational use but, by its nature, involves some activities that have an industrial character, such as carpentry and machining. Land uses surrounding the site include the Green River Community College campus; single family and multi-family residences, including student housing; a fire station; and various neighborhood type commercial uses. The proposed use has operated on the GRCC campus since the 1960's and is proposed to be relocated. The proposed facility will be similar in height to surrounding uses, although larger in bulk. The analyses submitted with the Expanded Environmental Checklist indicate that the site and building will be designed to address potential impacts , related to noise, views and traffic. With these and other proposed measures, the Trades facility will be compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposal is, therefore, consistent with the intent and criteria for the Public/Quasi-Public land use designation. 2. Zoning Code. A rezone from the R-5 Residential Zone (Five Dwelling Units per Acre) to the Institutional (I) classification is also sought by the applicant. The intent of the Institutional district is to provide significant areas where educational, governmental, theological, recreational, cultural and other public and quasi-public uses are allowed (ACC 18.44.010). The zoning code identifies Colleges as conditionally permitted in the Institutional zone subject to an administrative use permit (ACC 18.44.025). Development standards - including minimum area, setbacks, height, parking, landscaping and signs - are provided in 18.44.050. The proposed use is an educational use that is consistent with the intent of the Institutional zone.. The Institutional classification is currently applied to the Green River Community College campus. Approval of the proposed rezone would make the zoning of the proposed Trades site consistent with the campus. The applicant is also requesting approval of an administrative use permit as required by the zoning code. As reflected in the application, the proposal would comply with all development standards of the 5 - f a i q i 1 1 J Institutional zoning district, including height, setbacks, site coverage and performance standards related to noise and critical areas. 1 B. Consistency with the Policies of the Comprehensive Plan Several elements of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan contain policies that are relevant to the proposal, including Essential Public Facilities, Land Use/Neighborhood Quality, Environment, and Parks, Recreation & Open Space. These policies are identified and discussed in Chapter II.A.2 of the Expanded Environmental Checklist, and are briefly summarized herein. Essential Public Facilities The College is considered an "essential public facility" pursuant to the.Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.200). The Auburn Comprehensive Plan identifies procedures for siting new and expanding existing essential public facilities. The approximate 212 acre GRCC campus is an existing essential public facility and the proposed Trades facility would be an expansion of that existing use. Policy CF-66 requires the Planning Director to determine whether the change or intensification of use is significant; criteria for that determination include impacts on the surrounding area. Changes that are determined to be insignificant are reviewed through the City's standard development review procedures. The Trades rezone proposal represents an approximate 9 acre, or 4.1 percent, L increase to the existing developed GRCC campus located within the City of Auburn (212 acres). The approximate 22,000 square foot net increase in the size of the Trades facility represents an approximate 3.5 percent increase to the existing amount of developed building space on campus (approximately 638,000 SF). Land Use - Neighborhood Quality Relevant policies in the Land Use - Neighborhood Quality chapter of the Comprehensive Plan seek to maintain or enhance neighborhood character (LU-42) and to limit the impacts of non-residential uses through landscaping, design features and other appropriate conditions (LU-45). The proposal would not undermine or threaten the viability of the existing neighborhood. The GRCC campus has been an integral part of 6 the neighborhood since the 1960's and has not undermined its character or viability in any manner. The proposed Trades facility would incorporate a number of design features - including building orientation, landscaping, noise walls and construction techniques - that would minimize impacts to surrounding properties. Existing City regulations and conditions imposed through the administrative use permit process would ensure that no significant impacts to neighborhood quality occur. Environment The Environment chapter of the Comprehensive Plan contains goals, objectives and policies relating to protecting water resources, wetlands, environmental nuisances, and hazards (flooding, landslides, erosion, hazardous materials, and endangered species) and air quality. This chapter is implemented by the city's critical area regulations (ACC 16.10), noise regulations (ACC 8.28), stormwater management manual and environmental performance standards (ACC 18.31.180). On-site wetlands and associated buffer would be protected and would not be disturbed or altered by development. The site does not contain sensitive or protected habitat or species, and does not contain geologic hazards. Conformance with applicable noise standards is documented in Section 2.2 and Appendix E of the Expanded Environmental Checklist. Parks The Parks, Recreation and Open Space chapter of the Comprehensive Plan expresses the City's commitment to provide and maintain a comprehensive system of parks and open spaces that meets the needs of residents (Goal 21). The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (2005) identifies long range needs to meet expected population growth, and identifies land and capital improvement required. to meet City standards. The Trades proposal would replace an existing complex of buildings on campus and represents an incremental and minor increase in faculty (4) and students (119 FTE). While GRCC students use Lea Hill Park, along with neighborhood residents, the proposal would not result in an increase in demand for neighborhood park and recreation activities. As noted previously, the City and GRCC have executed an MOU that will, if completed, allow the College to acquire the Lea Hill Park property in exchange for an adjacent 7 property which would be developed for a new neighborhood park, at the College's expense. C. Availability of municipal services (sewer, water, roads, fire and police) The proposal would replace and relocate the existing Trades program from a complex of old and deteriorated buildings to a new site and building. This complex, associated faculty and students create existing demand for sewer, water, roads, fire service and police services. According to information presented in the Expanded Environmental Checklist, the estimated net increase of 22,426 square feet, 119 students (FTE) and 4 faculty would result in a minor increase in demand for sewer, water, fire and police services. No significant impacts to these services are anticipated. Traffic impacts are evaluated in detail in the Expanded Environmental Checklist. While traffic congestion would reduce levels of service at some intersections, this impact would occur with or without the proposal. Increased traffic congestion due to the proposal, as measured by increased delay at intersections, would be minor. The affected roadway corridors would meet adopted City standards for concurrency. The proposal would pay a City traffic impact to mitigate its impacts. As part of a separate project, the College is funding capacity, pedestrian and utility improvements along 124th Ave. SE, between S. 316th Street and S. 320th Street. These improvements would also benefit the Trades site. D. Consistency with Common Law Requirements for Rezones Numerous state of Washington Appellate Court decisions have identified additional criteria that apply to proposals for rezones, as follows. 1. Conditions in the area must have changed since the original zoning was established. However, no change in circumstances is necessary for rezones that implement the comprehensive plan. As indicated in II.A.1 and II.A.2 above, the subject property is designated "Public/Quasi-Public" in the Comprehensive Plan and the Institutional zoning classification is identified as an appropriate zone to implementing this designation. The 8 proposed rezone would, therefore, implement the Comprehensive Plan and no change in circumstances need be demonstrated. 2. The proposed rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the general welfare of the community. Community colleges are an important component of Washington's educational system. Green River Community College, which is part of this state system, provides education to approximately 8,400 students in the Auburn/south King County region. The Trades program, in particular, prepares students to enter the workforce in important segments of the local economy. The College is also a major employer in the City of Auburn and contributes to the local economy. The existing Trades facility is old, deteriorated, and inadequate to support the program in the future. The new facility represents a significant upgrading and modernization of program space, which will enhance the attractiveness and effectiveness of the program. Expansion of the program will enable the College to train more students in trades-related programs, which will enable these students to successfully compete for jobs. The proposal includes redesign, relocation and reconstruction of a neighborhood park on the adjacent property, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement between the City and the College. The College would fund construction of the new park. There would be no diminution in park facilities in the neighborhood, as the new park would be constructed before development of the Trades building begins. The City is working with neighborhood residents to design the new park so it meets neighborhood needs. The College has also agreed to fund road, pedestrian and utility improvements to 124th Ave. SE to improve traffic circulation in the campus area. These improvements would also support the Trades proposal. 9 IV. Consistency with Administrative Use Permit Criteria College facilities are permitted in the requested Institutional zoning district pursuant to an administrative use permit. The criteria for approval of an administrative use permit, as set forth in ACC 18.64.040, are discussed below. A. The use will not have a substantively greater adverse effect on the health, safety or comfort of persons living or working in the area and will not be substantively more injurious, economically or otherwise, to property or improvements in the surrounding area than would any use permitted in the district. Among matters to be considered are traffic flow and control, access to and circulation within the property, off-street parking and loading, refuse and service area, utilities, screening and buffering, signs, yards and other open spaces, height, bulk, and location of structures, location of proposed.open space uses, hours and manner of operation, and noise, lights, dust, odors, fumes and vibration . The Trades facility is an educational use that involves activities that could be considered commercial or industrial in character, and these activities involve potential noise, emissions and other externalities that can affect people and adjacent properties if not mitigated. As identified in the Expanded Environmental Checklist, however, the Trades proposal would mitigate any impacts related to land use, height and bulk, transportation and parking, noise, views/aesthetics, air emissions, and open space, among others concerns. As noted previously, approximately 43 percent of the Trades site (168,733 square feet) would not be developed and would be retained in wetlands and landscaping. In general, the facility would not be considered injurious to people, properties or improvements in the area. Uses permitted in the Institutional zoning district, either outright or conditionally, include cemeteries, government buildings and facilities, quasi-public buildings of a recreational or educational nature, airport landing areas, assembly/light manufacturing, and retail sales and services. By their nature, several of these uses could be as intensive or more intensive than the proposed Trades facility, including government facilities, assembly and manufacturing, or some retail uses. Depending on site-specific planning, 10 resulting impacts and proposed mitigation measures, these uses could generate similar or greater impacts than Trades. Therefore, Trades would not have a substantively greater impact on the health, safety or comfort of people in the area. B. The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Section II.A.1 above and the Land Use section of the Expanded Environmental Checklist address the consistency of the Trades proposal with relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal would be consistent with those goals and policies. C. The proposal complies with the requirements of this title. Section II.A.2 above and numerous sections of the Environmental Checklist refer to and address requirements of the zoning code, including but not limited to the discussion of wetlands, noise, land use and transportation. Based on the proposed design, and with implementation of mitigation measures and conditions of approval, the proposal will comply with the requirements of the zoning code. D. The proposal can be constructed and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in design, character, and appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. The Expanded Environmental Checklist describes how the proposal is being planned and designed to address issues of aesthetic and visual compatibility. For example, the tallest proposed building will be 36 feet in height, which is compatible with the scale of nearby residential buildings. The V-shaped design of the facility would place most of the building's bulk and noisier activities within the interior to the site, rather than along roads. Existing vegetation, including on-site wetlands, will be retained and supplemental landscaping will be provided to help screen views of the building from adjacent streets, sidewalks and land uses. 11 E. The proposal will be supported by adequate public facilities and services and will not adversely affect the public infrastructure. Based on the analysis in the environmental checklist, no significant impacts are expected to occur to sewer, water, fire or police services as a result of the proposal. Section 2.3 - Transportation of the Expanded Environmental Checklist identifies impacts of the proposed Trades facility on traffic, circulation and parking and recommends appropriate mitigation. These measures include payment of a transportation impact fee pursuant to ACC 19.04. Fees will be calculated according to applicable fee schedules and paid at the time of building permit application. F. The proposal will not cause or create a public nuisance. The proposal would not create a nuisance. The noise section of the Expanded Environmental Checklist evaluates the zoning code's performance standards for noise and the state noise standards (ACC 18.31.180B). An increase in noise relative to existing conditions will occur and will be noticeable. However, the analysis concludes that the proposal, with mitigation measures incorporated into the design of the building and additional recommended measures, will comply with applicable noise standards. G. The proposal's impacts can be appropriately mitigated through the application of conditions of approval, as applicable. The Expanded Environmental Checklist identifies measures that will reduce the impacts of the proposal to a level that is less than significant. These measures, along with conditions of approval imposed as part of the rezone process or administrative use permit, will provide appropriate mitigation for identified impacts. V. Conclusion The Trades rezone is consistent with the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and City Code. GRCC respectfully requests approval of the requested zoning reclassification and administrative use permit, with the conditions recommended by the city. 12 - - S.M. STEMPER , - ARCHITECTS GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRAD.E&BULUNG .LAND USE SUBMITTAL DRAWINGS PROJECTDESCRIPTION PROJECT DIRECTORY VICINITY MAP SITE INFORMATION Tbbvpdhb. WWA,tl.Mm.Pm°ebm.N~bm.m.pwm.lo..rmm~m G.n febr.II3G.mp. Pve lGert~li. - w 'AINRb1GIlOM IaE]IDUSt TLI]eb SW.RW 'Auburn ~ cryelammww,P Pl.ew.swm.3xw~mYU,aP•bw r.... i.a..manm.erms*frY.e.nbo~..nA.~Pm.mvcm.v.lcxccy wwnvuwosxBa E..mawx°s,w 4 PRMRPIAREaY lb WYOe°mAee1.G'MbumR/Ia IY MMiMb.nieeWNNuiAuCw MmW.hW T .Y.r.m BE.n LOe[°. 's N ~ sE GmI1wCm,rtwblmepe po.0u.dwT.mYAbmmmmbme.tlYeuM1OhRmmd °"n~~aa°1.m~m av`aur°"iw.xo i.'~o,~~•n.,m ~ g . rv ,'O1,\ tim15E]Hm SUrI CeYe.aeNe.MOmwWaeNNtlmm~glldONlilPm,ICm. FACIISRIIiYW 'A,hma WA°Wi~E31 .Ph.,. bf lr(Qlm..bm.(.eWm.4meP•drbnePmee bf Pe fAq.bme G,r Yi.'an IIR ISNNSIR _ _ 1511, S1 omwml.me nlmom.ra mmdwm.I.m.uroYS0.mlu cmmmrmPrNmeu..eped F.\<i5YWa19 Gm,EE+wivAEwswax Haryp - rA3ASSESmNSxuYa 0911PSWID w.wm•TMw.mvmo.wmm+rmYrs.omoe•>r.mammosr fl.mbPbs.nm mvimrsNEPAisErrtAme crmaYmb yRV PROJE - - - - owrGm,mmwm^PArAUU - aYf+eemuoll " all NW EKII 8111 SINE am..limm rbbl®mane,emr.m,aaEUmsc..lre scmmrY,m. NMeen uxA. sm.wn 3` - 1 511, 51 xo"HI 2x13 IrGimnNNYLbrmmermbp.uTU. ctm.4.m.. m. blm,l,IDeA.asE Isx ¢ rloneuvuwss 3 SE 3 SITE 91869E IIf OFSY IIIIFSS Pa1m91F59 PIINlY1VLYYf F0316EIC WffANRINYON 9E]IDMRx Wbem tUmArmu S£AM.°I..aw d.bm M.m.'MOUmm~r w mdPbar T WAYW fAa W57u~5D6 FYGNM,IFANILMNGEYNII MNLYAIG¢YYGX 12a9]AYE9Ero NECGR6PPIATINNO)d4,a efmml.b..amymhw3mr.mremmmmorolT..l. TMVmM4b~ieY~reb.wu PiTm. 1fi7 E]IFf,us1HS0UEnf T xo410PowIRHF NxesaLmwrosEGO L0 R FAxuW AEE e p pb 6~mamm~a PN, veom 1 ` r 16511, PI SF, owsATxxf36 ¢vucv®vuT?axlxsosueo -TM~~Tab~,yl.mpp,,.mnm,yy,.m,mswma mmbq FAxsmmmi ne l]win seessw.fmi mve.mewem,. TbmYwvTw.®w.mm.em.,nm.rwe~dr~w.mew.Ylm^db 'u.mawxsemf _ cNA EACeea, rn.mw.m saa,waa.Ymr.m.aemmm.amrebnwmm.aa.ammm.arm+sncmv AacxnEn m_ 18 '18 1F. rwriwp.Piee m,e,b,Pmb.wwm.bhuYmrw]PI f,E ae.,m riPOYm.mA+• s,ASmrorwaa.m I . vpwm.wemlerad Y,e.,.,;,ymYlovY4 "bb0e°"^]on eooooaAl,•wmsw.9wme ~ u, o 9.eY..WA 91191 fALeffie1d3W ~ -N ' m.lmprnl NVUp~mdn.eulemyx..ne.+.ame..ppdmn.Mas,ooa m~.b.llm~am ~^n o.e"' ~ ~ m d °dtyl.m lrsmmawme. m.. ~Ymymi.P~'eM.P?wdembHhd.mNl.dm+ SnY1~ W.99GPEAALHNER' Z JO Z ..P. pp.mmbM3a Prv+N YnCme. me sionhma6N®.m Q 3mw rmw N U Almw.up. PIr,1,E.mPVR.mJUMMP..PN~maYmSyubmu.4eIDeNWq,uPmard iAxr➢6gM3P3] OuiW.Adm Z W CAMPUS MAP _ r~m,mar.w.mm eYm..as.vwm.emlrv...mwhmrm.wem,.4•an,e.ums.lw d er.. ewmam.waom.Y maw„a...oew9.Pmp 3.ebmombmm.eror.b 1AxousEmxsumm .,,Yd,.mw.mA z ~ - - WI.voIFmPY9w - aW13°9E~ 9 fAl S9NIP]III'y m ~ ~ 6_ . s 3 I ' I req Cw Tnem pmpool,me Pdepexu mmYN~` N®bNw4Pd.dmuf u.wbYN.WAePWO EIft1WW.FNGwEFR 04 OF ypbgmanenmml]fbAn0.mm,431W9mImESLP~aYV.L EmmeCl..h.f. YHa1Wim ~ _Tm Wd FNIw53m cn LEGEN6: f3rtuRE1EtNM1L I O.douhdmmuo.Wtl.fhmPmt>bmA9e. pW.W~mb.L IRT¢ RSUIII Tmeawnee.et5mwl W = CWYIINIIYPARK fAC]PS7•IIxYm . ❑ J ® °'m , - I Plnneswnamo - ~ z n l3l~1~ fAaibYlR~.m w u CJ m ~ Mm 86 I, ~ ~ o N • - DRAWING INDEY r,w. ~ ~ Tno cmmax¢T,PNO]-1TOE0,vLmmrwP.wnY9 YVa \ n awvsrrovoswsYreAS¢PAP 'el.l aWrvsTmw¢wn+bamw - I an m.3nESnm m o IL - z j i I b.➢ SIGMFIWff i16EPR0iECI1GNPUN J ~ ~ ~ A~IE~Yx,.SYE~x EIL ¢FCNW1aIlEPW1 EI.1 EYEPVNPW139YPW13 _ mm 'i/7 EI3sGEPIAY•IIGHiINGREIAEANG w H8 BI - TB~n %''1[ fl 1~ b1:61-1 [ ~ g Q PA 1 Via.; i7' Q u `1 J r-- .mom ~ FAUP COVER ee ' ` Q PE SHEET ro o w.I; VICINTIYMAP S~~Ii ~ CAMPUS MAP u T~.~ ~'VI`~- xo~nrll 1006.04.03 Y 4I 15 JAR IN! C _ 11 K! tlh 9 I S i~'e~ p8i a s~-.-.- :mar . . _ - ~ ,>n,.e-.-~ ~ one ~@ ~ I - I - - -EA' :A Sal °f E pp X94;= ~&P@~~ i~ ~I le' ~ ~Ar I 5 ~Y ~ ~ Ha i. °F- P I I I 11-.. i I I Q~: p s ~ ~ gg k~(( II,~;q I I I 9I 5 ea M.ebOgopo F° a 1113 I- I 4 . F j q g j l , 6 ~ t ~ _ III ~4 ^ ; , ~ 5~ I I 9 "2 I Il I I a ~ / ~ ~ II I I~I ~ % ~ ~ § S ~ sad Sg" ~ • ~I II'~-.•'~~.-.-.- i i j € II ~ r II I~g i i ~ s I II.IL i ' \ ~ / g. j I , IR :7- 7L p N I _ 40 _ 1_241h AVE. SE • _ • • _ • • - C Z m - m -r Nr^y TRADES BUILDING 'GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE m 5 12401 SE 320TH ST., AUBURN, WA 98092-3699 o Q ~ ~ z F ^ Ld, STATE OF WASHINGTON PROJECT No. 2010-163 0 wraeno~o » o m,~,o~oo, s,..r, oar u...wmon,W~o,..«o I ~ I I I I I. I I I vp13 CYS I ~B • ¢ e I I rs ~ss s I ~e ~w II 0j jo ~ .a-. ~ .-,b,r,~-mow ;tuR -s t - -•-~-~.~a I~ ` „M _ E-- a j e C'a a 9 "iI L G it t aee®ppo.eooa+~ 9 / it :-3 / A 6 0 I 9 Fa~§ CRT PZ~ it 011 F-2 tj _ • G•5,:" ,a,,;a . R /1241h SAVE. SE ..L t T-- TRADES BUILDING m V J c - GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE °l l i~ I-3 m 3 3 12401 SE 320TH ST., AUBURN, WA 96092-3699 m K a - STATE OF WASHINGTON PROJECT No. 2010-163 4 u 1's ■ SEC. 9, T. 21 N, R. 5 E., W.M. ' I S.6l. STEMPER 'Ij ji , ~ ~ I ARCHITECTS BYZ,1Yra ..Irv' - - ICI - : : I I. 1 a; _W-W I w°'a•,,• ~ III I• Ic' ~ii , ~ I . I L / I I I I I , I I I : 1 ' ` „ e w iuux Idl~j a wxw LEGEND 11 / 1 a III Wsi.um . . I P ~:W- wATal IvNE , I ~ i I rr I 1 j i l ~ ,r ~ ' i I j III Ir I I I ~ % rH r --PP - roc cowacnox IINE I - ua cHEaE v.L ..-.v Y W WWLT nu mm~vrt r I I ; I I v, ~ ~ 1!-II JA „ r - .W. RIQ-DEPl1RIMFM~cON1>FL'll0tt,.. r fi Pon Wp1UlOH vNVE f I \ Y I , i. , i ~ nw vua ' i a W f wI~!DT 1 xnEA . m. I r e s umxrr sEwEA I1NE \ I - \ . , r sunnsr sEwEA Wb10lE I Y ~ ~ ~ I + - r III T>; I'~.II: I I II III ,r V I I' , • NOTES: Y•r w+, m. W Lr i r li - I i Ur ~ o i. A.cunax PALYLmON oLVSCES row ooua'llc Iwo _ I I i 1 z z BwIOINO rviE BvvwNIFA ERNCEB IAE v6gE , ammwc V o ~~j ,I I ~ Ei I I'' Q EJ0-73 ~ z ruluB.L c..s Aoorwc s scHnune B a sxoww F / /r rr • 1 sEE HECltwlul. -,-T I 1 - I J z PDA UfLL11Y COOVWN41gx PURPOBE DESYw Of THE r _n2 DH r % I Z ` 10 O I GLB UNE I] BY PUOEr BOUND EIO'ALY Ou I , CONNECT -G HIx , ss x;,•1 DROP P ,I . F 0 IE B-0 1 1 r - SEANCE \ - I I I _ U) o U a o oib '/I r` .ICI-il ~ I II wy w : , Yj ~ I ; ` WNFA6B R CEE ,'1;, v fall ail` - } i o rI ¢ wECwwrx\ i' ra ` 'l r , + ! i I I I~ I ILT[mLxSxECi To Ill i' 1 1 I f I ''l ' ~•`,I i I ' , rl eI 1 , rrl a IflESIPVNEB > 3 it 1 I , r i xc Hmwrrt I i : ~ I IY JI a - \ II II-i ' : I i o s°m i i r •R i ~'I GP E16'IING :1 ~ • n I I 111 I " i - r III I.'' II~ BOH 1]. ~6PA NNLEA II I , ! ! .1TTuuIE I. I ' 'll I/ `1 8 1 OIIOP, YhYHWE MEaWqu1 . S151E]I `REMOVE BEwFl1 , P. ND V II P 1, n cli-ON RFSIP.vAEOI ~,UIOWG ' ATH Yv YYYIii LYtlli[ - : v I:. ' I Q ! I l ;l 11 I I I I I , i ,•~I NO v . I l I a . ` ..1 .1....._. i _,colAWw,nox sswH H„'ia•r'L..__.'. • ,rl _ mss Ir. ..1 . \ \ _ a~ iiv we a Laz _ _ z 1•. ` II 1 sEO u PTO ErsnND_\ • . . _ _ av EOr io-om xc ✓ B [ . • . I w.lmuwx, wEr w - xurznuula, wEr TM TIL . . _ . - ' - ..___.I . "NI] ]]WI 1 r. I R - ry - , 0•~ mil` I . i ~ ~I qq II NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CJ.O SMSA 1006.04 e s _ ;n ' I I ! PLANT SCHEDULE I~'v \ swY,w'Nm., or ,.:;-.r•_ y ^I _ III. Li ! III II ARCH TECTS SO. E%LBTBJGCANRERTREETOREMMN 1 1~,. ~ ° ins -'''•II ~I :I I I ! e ~_~uUPEmat rv WS NG DEWUOUS TREE DPEMaw \ 1 / PE-LINE ttP ~ ' ~ AD a151~ a•.iw W. p3B, svmnwnwl ne j I \ 1 _ _1, PvaPla•IroP_P.IF>o - II' III c CONIFER TREE I _ I-=•-•r, - ~.1_;;-.-r;a a,. ems. w- _ I I'. ane:: : xlnrul. BaB. sumnamwl ~ ~ ~ ts~''_w v DECIDUOUS f... s~q .~,Ja. cuss mYYE - ~9qZ% she 9t✓ I -3vWq L'', t I I I ' ~ cnmY paBpF SF ~:•..s s _ _ •:•~5's' '~.p^toq• I-~tl ~ II,~ I: II ' I ' SHRUB. SEFMNGYNDGROVNDCOVER ]GY Smwa®tf•D.D.If GOI •'oY."' _ GPEEII POOF typOa SF C .J\ny~."'.F... .-'ik .r•. ~•.ti`f'ZL. 4' I. I'-1I _I~; I • g~} }a A a; I WNN ~ TYPICAL TREEBSHRU9LIST Ij~17 [95s`,y~F~°•:•• : 'd }^'a ~S•~.'.~ ~aF sl. I It l~u I I, i. I poi.>nuue a H~ c.euu ~'9f D r :~L^~ f L I {I me u awl.:ovv. pleura DaFlr "1y - l~ I I~ w caraaw C xwwY. I Y. • 1 I - I I- ':I, IQ t;~w m~ ~e w01"'MemnNe~ I::.:::Y,.~,•,~ .r;• ~L ~ ~ ',11 i :.4„~;wY _ .III ` I I 74~ I{ eFYVw nemw.wle waon ac.w :I. ~~E"•"'Yr i __I •.YV~1ue~ ''il`..'.: MaleeeBwle gyvnr+pmmea ~ ® SNUtle aemwrvvwn Cowl ReBaooB L Pia m.ww SVw Mee - ywawm SwnY Maya ~ a ~ - ` PCwrvnT:E6e1 N'nlle wmweF EaGetwNa WmCV Dopxmp ,•:•t ' Ar~ I~ 'i •r '-f A • . La>u lac y I III I~~ a,:: ~ snws. nn new ~ \ ~ d. a , ~ ~ 1 I ' LMo PNa,~w"m,~,wmF.m , _ I~ r~ :;1 I I, p, ,l. : I i- splwm ~n,Fem `\~.'mwl~y ~ I ~ 4 amynun wraamW CY Fem F I .y( ,l m ' 1 vnryw~nm B~mrnan t<n Bwm". F.m ~tln4 ( -1"~~) ~ I I ;L I I „I. ;I ~ rv o H wxn uWNum e I I ( I ~I 11 ; I j o N Ms„nuep O,epmM MemYa now 1-0. MalmN 1 ~dPi.4 ' ! I 1 I , I Mamye nervosa Lary leYMarone ; I I I I V 3 O Q Z Melanwmmn Yleuvm FsUe L%tlwVwY IF~V 'rte / _ I Gam.Ymn. m.lau ~ " - Pyyppnawmptlnawm btlow,ia Seel "e-•. ~ - _ - _ _ ~ - WwwmvCaewmre,YBYUn VmlapuU btlnrmt S.Y . d~f pyY R.vea lmmaewa F.i" s` I i - - I' I. ; 4! I- » p MmewyMa. w.MYTaw RereY vma a,mwem. . v.YbM.Bmne i ~ , r rawm y5~ .I m g a a G.BaEo;m s°:,wPeemN 5 _ III! I, I _ v Z w G.nwwYYp I ' p 9 I II oawa awwwu. wemstl,.I VaernnYe f. ? U) IANmI •"'a~' ' 'RU%GbW PueYGbw W ~ S (7 WmamWSe mennaYe TNw' DlewweN NwY TMOES-BOLDING f _ 9 ` WmwnMeawemeda~~.W ~w.,B..MYNN~NavI " i~-.a J ' • .I. ~ - a @a H w w \ \ : a ~e 491C~~.~ ~l~ ~.o: - > Y r b• \ `1- ' I _ ~ - I ~ III c~ 'o I~ \ .l s'~ar dM 7F .,•5:.:.'j ~I C _ii \ e L' II H J 1 I I~ ` \ X1.4, 5a I' II r SvN, e-wE-IDBUFFER II I, III I. -•I , I,-.•.. ~Y44 n'p , Y ~aLL VEGETARON INSIVE y< I `I •I I i I I I : ' ~ II ' • ~ _ i a IpWEAAND -I. I I; I j :i I _:e1~Y 2 Ij1 I COLLEGE 1:. I I 4v..M1to s : I }Il 1 II tl s eao ~ I a I• I - - 4'' tt, Ts. , ,uw •'i ^alb,:,a'.titi:'•.+.-•T,aYBrY-mi"4- s^:e, d, I I` ti J •D .l - f ~•I\~~ a.. - - - - 1r ~ - s:at~ - L - I L I II~~~II I I LI I m='"= I ' - PLANTING : { I. I_ ~I I 1 NO- L 3 SMSA 0060.04 i h / 6-~ . ,i.l~.... _.__.I S.M. STEMPER _ IRRIGATION LEGEND ~ \y \ ~ rI. I -I I I I ~ 1 ARCHITECTS ® rr,ImsuPElwureo wml wnrea~sNU:l+r sPanr xrwos I 1 I 1 ~ I ~ _ I ~ tj~ii~ 117 ~ _..~"'k~ ~'~,t'~ i I • uxoswexoT lawuTEO \ 1 ~ a GPI : I E 1 I I I, ;L ~ I u' C !I'" ~'I I~~• ' I:cTMIGMSCPEENMGTO11-CENL aECEIVE JI PaoPEanss TO I---ION 3 / w.ucrNr*O'+r~' H S j'"' tl -lYit ! I II i mno~-GUwwc TO I~ NECENE INGC-.110N : ! it , ' \ I ~ •I I I [ I tll, li • I P as ina a,aPt a: 1j1 I 'i I 'l " PMaa{G U[ 1`.. I ,I \ iP ? II ~ I i I Ir1 W p N Eas TO lJ III 1, aecF.IrIE mIOGnno _ I r, ,S ~ ~ - z ~ m i; 1 ❑ °3 ~ 11 R I , I [4 ' e_ 3 Il Z~ I ' U) L) z \ , r ~ I ! r 11..._.. `ur~, r. FIX, I 1` I : \ II. ~ r l ~r F~~U~ ~ .r ~i• ~ i^~ :S Ir-',-Irl~]5.'1 I F s, ' r I ~ / I i, L_ • ~ ` ~ 1i ~ I{ i'IV„i ~',c I 4 ' IT~,1 f.' 4I I 1 I iI- I F. i NIN ONNONI COLLEGE 6 I Pi) t1II - _ r e'1 lL J `..----L} `-\j----- HT ?:.-~..'~..u.nax~,e •~r~-~..~ wv q-__- sr- -.'1 l 3`~ a s.r_.rzarx r~ p~~~~}""~ ~k. _ ,,c! w..-W ,+,G I~ I i,~ 1 PI s {I: .I r ~ ~ III li ,I/~ f , :11 L i4;=,•~, INOaTx L4.0 - 17?'.r:i~`I' i-• i ' ~F~ SMSA 1006.04 `I 1 I ' ~ y \ \ i . ! I i _ S.M. STEMPER • \ ~ ~'i i i 'I j ' I ARCHITECTS J I II j =6 EXISTING SIGNIFICANT CONIFER TREE \ •Y I, rl I 11 I O EXISTING SIGNIFICANT DECIDUOUS TREE \ , I SIGNIFICANT TREE TO BE REMOVED ""1 \ , r _ r~I' III . E CT _ _ I clliTs I SIGNIFICANT TREE( S) TO BE PROTECTED. " SEE TREE PROTECTION DETAIL THIS SHEET ~ ~ + Il i j I I I I I NOTES: ' • SIGNIFICANT TREES ARE DEFINED BY CITY OF AUBURN CODE 18S0.030 (E) • 21 SIGNIFICANT DECIDUOUS TREES TO BE REMOVED I iI • 1B SIGNIFICANT CONIFERS TO BE REIAOVFD pRFp4 AGnxc AS SCREENING rO APIAGEN -_I PROPEftnESTORECDNEIMD-ON I ' .I III _ is : i I DARRICAOE FENCING(ORANGE it 19 ~ I r CONSTRUCTION FENCE) I la I i I, I,'Il I I I MIN. 6'HIT. SURROUNDTREE a I~ ORGROUP OFT REES AT DRIP LINE pI 91a o I J - I e0 ' , J A- ADJACExTTO 1,, I TRAOESDIIRDINGTD • RECOVE --Ox 1' I III I I I I-~! s'POST HEIGHT I _ - . I .i II J METAL SUPPORT POST /~I 94 ON CENTER I'POST BURWL r . I + DEPTH I ® { i' I SPACING.MJN.SHT .........._I r I I I V 'I III I _ II I ~ TREE PROTECTION DETAIL I NOT TO SCALE „ •,'Y~.,` ^r^\„'+._/ '-l~I I I~ I ! _kk A. I %I LPA GIN r.. s ~I I Y I.II II 'I -'.i o .I PA I 1 0 ECENERKING MEAS TO ' I: RIDRwAT aN'- i I : ~ ~ ~ : _ ICI i ~ J F Z \ 1 cD b o I - ~ III I I - r ' i i I J N Vii. i ::i • 4 ~L I I ' \ :Ir I .J I 1) L Vi III I I I' 'I I'~. II I\ _ ..1 ? I -I i '.:'I 11 li Irl I - I ,~\'I!.:i Ir I]'- -II I i I='I Lf1P1Gi1Roe1OLLEGa I I I I I _ I 1 - I uS~au - •:`'-~11 -A t J I% rl pl III I' R: I - s _ ~ Y i - - I I,I PSIGCANT TREE PROTECTION 1 y l LAN P , u_ ,mid I;! NORTH L5.0 SMSA 1006.04 I Iii a p I I I I' 8 l• i - ion I I F@ I ',r,V ~ X01 ~ I I,~ ► ~ ~ i~ /I I fly :I' ~ I C~_ if a II) ®-I~-C~~ I 2 9 ' I D g TRADES BUILDING 7a°'~xy e O C 3 E GREEN RNER CCOMMUNFY COLLEGE g 124015E 320TH 0TH ST., AUBURN. . WA 9809 2-M9 S _ - s STATE OF WASFtlNGTaN FPAJECT W 201U-163 F I I / I I - - I}Ind AV^-.E. - _ I I I L 1 r I I I - .1 L p a, I ~ i ~ ~ I^I ! s T I I A I! ° ~ ~ a 1 r_ 8~ 1 ~ 4 9p T ~ i ~ LL1__ ~J v iLLLtiif • 1 I•, ~ --tr 1241h A'/E. Sr - 1201h A%E. SE FT. g~ e ~N 7 9 ~Q C ° mm s s TRADES BUILDING N 111 6 e GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE 12401 SE 320TH ST., AUBURN, WA98092-3899 A Q a + STATE OF WASHINGTON PFDJECT Na 2010-163 S.ES. 5TEAfPER ~ ARCHTPECTS / u u u u u 't'. „ u u••,, a i. v- _ Stat Area - North of Sit. „ Illuminance Values (Fc) Average'=0.73 Maximum =21 s Minimum =0.0 qvg/Min Ratio=0.00' Max/Min Ratio=0.00 Sta~ Area ~Edslt of Sits r7 / Illu \ nf~ Values...(Fc)3.~ , Av rag _ 1~;7.,-_. - u / Maximum =3.7 Minimum =0.0 'O b _ Stat Area -West of Site Avg/MI U&010 w o , . / i F= Max/ in Ratio=0. Illuminance Values (Fc) Z O °i c1" t. u 3 Average Maximum =4.0 „ ~ ~ Minimum -0.0 Avg/Min Ratlo=0.00 „ .l y ,Jl,L• \ _ m ZZ Max/Min Ratio= .00 „ „ r. < w `~1 ` 4 k \ m 0 ¢ O O ~ U' o }+J , . . . . . . . i a SITE PLAN-PT BY PT CALCULATIONS I ....IJ t:, e swc m' ~ COY [[Ylii IIEY[ Greenriver Community College - Trades Building Luminaire Schedule Symbol Oty Label Arrangement Description 24 wp914-13k SINGLE WP9L4_LED-3500K - 11 w 914-13k dbl BACK-BACK WP9L4_LED-3500K dbl Not to Scale - SITE PLAN Mounting Height: 20• Pf BY Pi Calculation Points at 10' Intervals E1.1 - i5 SMSA 1006.04 I. r I k N_ F~ m z c~ x z O m z 0 m z O N;;r 4 f TRADES BUILDING a ;~RiE`x 3 RI p R N 3 1_! t ~ E Ei I 1' 1 e Fm em GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE lit oO p E i 12401 BE 320TH ST., AUBURN, WA 98092-3899 P, N czi_ m a s STATE OF WASHINGTON PROJECT No. 2010-163 1 e: CITY OF ~ Peter B. Lewis, Mayor * WASHINGTON 25 West Main Street # Auburn WA 98001-4998 www.auburnwa.9ov 253-931-3000 NOTICE 0F:APPLICATION Green River Community College Trades Building APPLICATION REQUESTED: Rezone, Administrative Use Permit, SEPA Review ~j APPLICATION NUMBERS: REZ10-0001, ADM10-0004, and SEP10-0024 llnalr 09~- APPLICATION FILED: September 13, 2010 COMPLETE APPLICATION: October 21, 2010 NOTICE OF APPLICATION: November 18, 2010 PROPONENT: Green River Community College, 12401 SE 320th Street, Auburn, WA 98092 PROPERTY LOCATION: Intersection of SE 320th Street and 124th Avenue SE; Parcel Number: 0921059020 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Green River Community College proposes the construction of a 65,000 square . foot Trades facility on a 9 acre site that also includes, parking, stormdrainage facilities, landscaping, and .a trail to connect with the future City parking locate north of the subject property. The proposal also entails a rezone from R-5 (Residential 5 du/acre) to I (Institutional). and an administrative use permit. AUBURN CONTACT: Elizabeth Chamberlain, Planning Manager, echamberlainCcDauburnwa.aov or 253- 931-3092 STUDIES SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION: Geotechnical Report dated June 3_201 0 prepared by GeoEngineers; Phase ,1 Environmental Site Assessment dated May 19;,2010 prepared by GeoEngineers; Air Quality Report.dated August 13, 2010 prepared by. Environ Corp; Critical Areas Reportdated August 6; 2010 prepared by Keith Fabin - Inc.; Preliminary Storm Drainage Report dated August 2010 prepared 91 by Reid Middleton; Noise Study dated August 20, 2010 prepared by The Greenbusch Group, Inc.; Cultural.Resource Report dated June,16, 2010 prepared,by Northwest.Archaeological Associates, Inc.; and Traffic Impact :Study dated August 5, 2010.prepared by Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC. OTHER PERMITS AND PLANS WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED: See above list; Building Permit, Facility Extension, Grading Permit, and Puget-Sound Clean Air Agency permit STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY AND LIST OF APPLICABLE, DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: This project is subject to and shall be consistent with the City of Auburn Zoning Code and Design Standards. Public Hearing: A public hearing will be required for this proposal. A separate notice will be issued once a date has been established. Public Comment Period: You are invited to comment; request a copy of the decision, when available, and be made "aware of any appeal rights. Comments must,be received in writing within 15 days or by December 3, 2010 5:00 pm by the Auburn 'Planning and Development Department at the mailing address: 25 West Main,. Auburn, WA 98001-4998 and located 'at: 1 East.Main Street, Auburn.WA 98001. If you call or write, please reference File Nos. REZ10-0001, ADM10-0004; and SEP10-0024. .If you have further comments or questions related to this application, you may contact Elizabeth Chamberlain, Planning Manager at echamberlain(a~auburnwa.gov or (253) 931-3092. If you call or write, please reference File Nos. REZ10-0001, ADM10-0004, and SEP10-0024. AUBURN *MOPE THAN YOU IMAGINED S.M. STEMPER ARCHITECTS III r II I - - la ------J I - . I - - I - y" _ I~cmw _ _ •,I; SE 31MST 1 y _ I I If1 - l: 1 - I I I~ I I w~i _ I 1 ,n --WY i'- I - _ v~RlO.um V j o z / ~I Z 0. w c v~- - - ( I 0 It _ i - \ I^l TRADES BUILDING m ZZ ES,00D SF p ¢ p u~ 1 :~I Lu ~ ~ 11 ww 1 a WE I 9 1 1 w I Q W w ~ I ~1 tit 4'f. I 77 ELK SE ]ZDTH ST ,1 ~~GRGC MAIN CRMPU3 / ~ ~ ~ SCHEMATIC DESIGN ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN 1Bn LECENO: cENEwANOres: NoRTN f-•]O ~✓-fUGrc^ wETUwD BOUNDARY 1. PREUN--HEIOIR 3- TOPOF PARAPET, tI'TOTOP OFLIFAESTORY ARCH - -wETw+o euFFER 2 PREUMUWiYMW.BIDG IRJGHP. ZiTO TOP OFPAfUPET SITE PLAN SUR➢wG FOOTPRINT COVERED ENCLOSED WORKARFA SPADE OPEDESTRIANNATURETRAIL AO.1 1 PpvEO PARaNOU+o vENlcutAR AccESS SMSA 1006.04 1' e eante Muttlellwk seattletimes.com ; PO Box 70, Seattle, WA 98111 AUBURN CITY OF-FINANCE DEPT ATTN CITY CLERK 25 WEST MAIN AUBURN, WA 98001 Re: Advertiser Account #30785204 Ad 793690300 Affidavit of Publication 41 05255 / 3 STATE OF WASHINGTON Counties of King and Snohomish The undersigned, on oath states that he/she is an authorized representative of The Seattle Times Company, publisher of The Seattle Times of general circulation published daily in King and Snohomish Counties, State of Washington. The Seattle Times has been approved as a legal newspaper by orders of the Superior Court of King and Snohomish Counties. The notice, in the exact form annexed, was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper or papers and distributed to its subscribers during all of the said period. Newspaper 5 Publication Date The Seattle Times 11/19/10 Signature ITFIT ~;,jK\\N\1111°° G'd Y Sitbs~r( ed a d sworn to before me on ~r o g~ %r - TE % ) Z M k ATURE) Notary Pu is i and fort a tate of Washington, residing at Seattle d yaoJ o, a~e~ ~ a Sea~tte ~itn.e,~ cam, seattletimes.com Re Advertiser Account #30785204 Ad # 793690300 Ad TEXT:NOTICE OF APPLICATION Cultural RsouReport dated June 16, PROJECT: Green River 2010 prepared by Community College Trades Northwest Archaeological Building Associates, Inc.; and APPLICATION NO: REZ10-0001, Traffic Impact Study dated August 5, 2010 ADM10-0004, and SEP10-0024 prepared by Transportation APPLICANT: Green River Engineering Community College, 12401 Northwest, LLC. SE 320th Street, Auburn, WA WOTHER PERMITS & PLANS 98092 E REQU RED: MAY B PROPERTY LOCATION: Rezone, Administrative Use Intersection of SE 320th Street Permit, SEPA Review, and 124th Avenue Building Permit, Facility SE; Parcel Number: 0921059020 Extension, and Grading Permit; Puget Sound Clean Air DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Agency permit Green River Community STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY College proposes the & LIST OF APPLICABLE construction of a 65,000 DEVELOPMENT square foot Trades facility on a REGULATIONS: This project is 9 acre site subject that also includes, parking, to and shall be consistent with stormdrainage the City of facilities, landscaping, and a Auburn Zoning Code and trail to connect Design Standards. with the future City parking PUBLIC HEARING: A public locate north of the hearing will be subject property. The proposal required for this proposal. A also entails a separate notice rezone from R-5 (Residential 5 will be issued once a date has du/acre) to I been (Institutional) and an established. administrative use PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: permit. You are invited to APPLICATION FILED: comment, request a copy of the September 13, 2010 decision, when COMPLETE APPLICATION: available, and be made aware of October 21, 2010 any appeal NOTICE OF APPLICATION rights. Comments must be DATE: November 18, 2010 received in writing by STUDIES SUBMITTED WITH the Auburn Department of APPLICATION: Geotechnical Planning and Report dated June 3, 2010 Development Department at 25 prepared by West Main, Auburn, GeoEngineers; Phase 1 WA 98001-4998. Contact: Environmental Site Elizabeth Chamberlain, Assessment dated May 19, 2010 Planning Manager prepared by echamberlain@auburnwa.gov GeoEngineers; Air Quality or Report dated August 253-931-3092. Any comments 13, 2010 prepared by Environ must be submitted by Corp; Critical 5:00 p.m. on December 3, 2010. Areas Report dated August 6, Reference File ADM10-0004, 2010 prepared by No: REZ1 0-0001, Keith Fabing, Inc.; Preliminary and SEP10-0024 Storm Drainage Report dated August 2010 prepared by Reid Middleton; Noise Study dated August 20, 2010 prepared by The Greenbusch Group, PUBLIC POSTING INSTRUCTIONS • ~ ~ r~ ` - RELATED APPLICATION NO.: T.R.RECEIPT: - J PURCHASE PRICE: _$80.00 $136 00 (circle STAFF USE ONLY f r G Staff informed applicant sign will be ready for posting (date): 0 Staff initials Pursuant to Auburn City Code 1.27.030, the following public notice sign(s) are required: []Type I Type II (Note: total number of signs 1 03)(circle) The above referenced project requires public notification for the following processes: Notice of Application ` Notice of Public Hearing ❑ Reconsideration Period Environmental Determination Appeal Period ❑ Other The sign must be posted on or before: ~/;I/i/I ICI ~~Z~ FAILURE TO POST SIGN IN ACCORDANCE. WITH INSTRUCTION-AND AUBURN CITY CODE 1.27 WILL DELAY THE CONTINUED PROCESSING OF YOUR APPLICATION(S). The sign must remain posted for the duration of: 1110 days 014 days 015 days 021, days *ther *Note: If multiple boxes are checked, the comment periods do not run concurrently. Do riot remove the sign(s) until all public, notification periods are exhausted. Sign(s)-must be maintained until conclusion of all processes. Point of contact for the sign: Name: 3 RA4A (A [I Phone Affiliation to Address: (2,40 S a2 reu (Y~ k6c+ Project: AvAmlqq_, VV q00 Staff noted sign fee on ProjectTrak (date): '"l ' 1b,. l c Affidavit of posting received from applicant (date): Staff noted the following noncompliance: Staff modified posting (date): , for the reason of: received the number of signs indicated above. I understand that the signs must be posted in accordance with Auburn City Code (ACC) .1.27. 1 have received a copy of ACC 1.17 and understand the applicant/owner responsibilities outlined in section 1.27.040 and the specifications outlined in section 1.27.050. O ~tn - 5 S•~~ - Date Signature G:\Permit Center\Templates\Notices\"Public Posting Compliance Form.doc CITY OF B Peter B. Lewis, Mayor _D-UR,_N rnwa: ov 253-931-3000 WASHINGTON 25 West Main Street * Auburn WA 9.8001-4998 ~ www.aubu g NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Green River Community College Trades Building The.Hearing Examiner of the City of Auburn, Washington, will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, July 20, 2011, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall located at 25 West.Main Street on the following: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The proposal is to rezone approximately 9 acres from R-5 (Residential. 5 du/acre) to. I (Institutional). Green. River Community College proposes the construction of a 65,000square foot Trades 'facility that also includes, .parking, storm drainage facilities, landscaping, and. a trail, to connect .with. the future City Park locate north of the subject property. An administrative use- permit is required for the proposed building. APPLICATION NUMBER: REZ10-0001 PROPONENT: Green River Community College, 12401 SE 320th Street, Auburn, WA 98092 PROPERTY LOCATION: Intersection of SE 320th Street and 124th Avenue SE; Parcel Number: 0921059020 Public Comment Period: You are invited to express comments up until and at the public hearing. Written comments may be 'submitted'to Elizabeth. Chamberlain, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Departmeht,'25 West Main Street; Auburn, WA 98001-4998 or via email at echamberlain@auburnwa.gov. For citizens with speech„ sight or hearing disabilities wishing to review.documents pertaining to this hearing, should contact the City of Auburn within 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, as to the type of service or equipment needed. Each request will be considered individually according to the type of request, the availability of resources, and the. financial ability of the City to provide the requested,services 'or equipment. If you have further comment's or questions relatedto this application, you may contact Elizabeth Chamberlain, Planning, Manager at (253) 931-3092. If you call or write, please reference File No. REZ10-0001 City of Auburn . Planning and- Development Department 25-West Maim Auburn, Washington 98001-4998 AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED i AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING OF LEGAL NOTICE BY STAFF Application No.: REZ10-0001 Applicant: Green River Community College Location: SE 320th Street and 124th Avenue SE; Parcel No.: 0921059020 Date of Public Hearing: July 20, 2011 I certify that on July 7, 2011 1 did affix a Notice of Public Hearing for the above referenced application, as required by Auburn City Code 1.27 18.66.130, to the land use posting board erected at the above site. This notice was posted at least 10 days prior to the date of public hearing noted above. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Gary Yao Name (please print or type) Axlj~' Sig t r 7/7111 Da e CITY OF _RN BU AV "WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING OF LEGAL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Application No.: REZ10-0001 Applicant: Green River Community College Location: SE 320th Street and 124th Avenue SE; Parcel No.: 0921059020 Date of Public Hearing: July 20, 2011 1 certify that on July 7, 2011 I did send a Notice of Public Hearing for the above referenced application, as required by Auburn City Code 18.66.130, to all property owners located within 300 feet of the affected site. Said Notice was mailed pre-paid stamped through the United States Postal Service at least 10 days prior to the public hearing date noted above. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. C C` Bobbie Hodgkinson, Supp rt Clerk 0 a Moe scautcOtmes seattletimes.com PO Box 70, Seattle, WA 98111 AUBURN CITY OF-FINANCE DEPT { ATTN CITY CLERK 25 WEST MAIN AUBURN, WA 98001 Re: Advertiser Account #30785204 Ad 798244200 Affidavit of Publication 4132871 / 3 STATE OF WASHINGTON Counties of King and Snohomish The undersigned, on oath states that he/she is an authorized representative of The Seattle Times Company, mes has been approved as published daily in King and Snohomish Counties, State publisher of The Seattle tle Times of general newspaper by orders of he Superior Court of of Washington. The Seat King and Snohomish Counties. The notice, in the exact form annexed, was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper or papers and distributed to its subscribers during all of the said period. Newspaper Publication Date The Seattle Times 07/06111 i ~ ~.NVa~►~rgent h4 cri °il'm)1 Ptre o Signature E I w bscribed and sworn to before me on ` `A ~ kb, ~ ou ! (DATE) / `~~N G ~ RY SIGNATURE) No Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Seattle of r Too $cantoi tines seattletimes.com Re Advertiser Account #30785204 Ad # 798244200 Ad TEXT:CITY OF AUBURN by providing their NOTICE OF name, mailing address, and PUBLIC HEARING reference the application number - REZ10- The Hearing Examiner of the 0001 City of Auburn, Washington, will conduct a For citizens with speech, sight public hearing on or hearing Wednesday, July 20, 2011, at disabilities wishing to review 5:30 p.m. in the documents Council Chambers of the pertaining to this hearing, Auburn City Hall located should contact the at 25 West Main Street on the City of Auburn within 10 following case: calendar days prior to the meeting, as to the type of APPLICATION NO.: REZ70-0001 service or equipment needed. Each request will be PROPONENT: Green River considered individually Community College, 12401 according to the type of SE 320th Street, Auburn, WA request, the availability of 96092 resources, and the financial ability of the City to PROPERTY LOCATION: provide the Intersection of SE 320th requested services or Street and 124th Avenue SE; equipment. Parcel Number: 0921059020 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: 25 WEST MAIN The proposal is to STREET, AUBURN, WA 98001 rezone approximately 9 acres (253) 931-3090, from R-5 Contact: Elizabeth Chamberlain, (Residential 5 du/acre) to I Planning (Institutional). Manager Green River Community College proposes the construction of a 65,000 square foot Trades facility that also includes, parking, storm drainage facilities, landscaping, and a trail to connect with the future City Park locate north of the subject property. An administrative use permit is required for the proposed building. All persons may comment on this application' either in writing to the address below or by submitting written or oral testimony during the public hearing. Any person wishing to become a party of record and receive future notices, copies of the staff report with recommendation (one week prior to hearing), Hearing Examiner decision or any appeal decision must notify Planning and Development CITY OF T{ RN Peter B. Lewis, Mayor WASHINGTON 25 West Main Street # Auburn WA 98001-4998 * www.auburnwa.gov 253-931-3000 ~J MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Green River Community College Trades Building Rezone and Administrative Use Permit; . SEP10-0024, REZ10-00011 and.ADM10-0004 Project Description: Green River Community College proposes the construction of a 65,000 square foot Trades facility on a 9 acre site that also includes, parking, storm drainage facilities, landscaping, and a trail to connect with the future City Park locate north of the subject property. The proposal also entails a rezone from R-5 (Residential 5 du/acre) to I (Institutional) and an administrative use permit. Applicant Name: Green River Community College, 12401 SE 320th Street, Auburn, WA 98092 Location: Intersection of SE 320th Street and 124th Avenue SE; Parcel Number: 0921059020. The Responsible Official of the City of Auburn, the lead agency, hereby makes the following Findings of Fact based upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist and the "Final Staff Evaluation of the Environmental Checklist No. SEP10-0024", and Conclusions of Law based upon the Auburn Comprehensive Plan, and other Municipal policies, plans, rules and regulations designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act Rules pursuant to R.C.W. 43.21C.060. Findings of Fact: 1. The applicant proposes to construct a new 65,000 square foot single story building that will be for Green River Community College (GRCC) trades classes such as carpentry,. automobile repair, and welding. The subject site. is approximately 9 acres and located at the intersection of SE 320th Street and-124th Avenue SE. The site is currently developed. as a public park that includes baseball fields, tennis courts, and playground. 2. The subject site is currently owned by the City of Auburn. Green River. Community College (GRCC) and the City of Auburn are currently. negotiating a land.exchange. that would transfer the subject site to GRCC and property owned by GRCC just north of the subject site to the City of Auburn for a new l park site. A Memorandum of Understanding for this land exchange was executed between the City of Auburn and GRCC on February 5, 2010. The City of Auburn is working on a master plan for the new park site and soliciting input from the community. 3. GRCC was annexed into the City of Auburn January 1, ,2008 as part of the Lea Hill Annexation Area. GRCC campus occupies approximately 212 acres south of SE 320th Street. The majority of the campus property is leased from the Department of Natural Resources. 4. A rezone is required for the proposed Trades Building to allow for the proposed uses on the subject property. The subject site is currently zoned R-5 (5 du/acre) and the proposal is the rezone the subject site to Institutional. The comprehensive plan land use designation for the subject site is Public/Quasi-Public. 5. Pursuant to Auburn City Code Section 18.64.020(B) the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner is authorized to conduct'a duly noticed public hearing and render a recommendation on the rezone application. The Hearing Examiner's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for a decision. The City Council's decision is appealable to the Superior Court of the applicable county government. 6. The subject property is within the City's Water and Sanitary sewer service areas. 7. Requirements of ACC Chapter 15.74 Land Clearing, ACC Chapter 15.68, and ACC 16.10 are applicable to the site. Compliance with these referenced chapters of the Auburn City Code will be Page 1 of 6 AUBURN *MOPE THAN YOU IMAGINED MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE SEP10-0024 (Continued) evaluated as part of the City's land use or environmental or engineering or building permit approval process in which a decision to approve, approve with conditions or deny will be made, as applicable. 8. No state or federal candidate threatened or endangered plant species have been identified on the site. This determination was made by City staff using State Department of Natural Resources Priority Habitat Data. 9. Policy EN-69, Auburn Comprehensive Plan (ACP): The City shall seek to ensure that land not developed or otherwise modified in a manner which will result in or significantly increase the potential for slope slippage, landslide, subsidence or substantial soil erosion. The City's development standards shall dictate the use of Best Management Practices to minimize the potential for these problems)). 10. Policy EN-11, ACP: The City will seek to ensure that the quality of water leaving the City is of equivalent quality to the water entering. This will be accomplished- by emphasizing prevention of pollution to surface and ground waters through education programs and implementation and enforcement of Best Management Practices. 11. Policy EN-71, ACP: The City shall consider the impacts of new development on hazards associated with soils and subsurface drainage.as a part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. 12. Policy EN-3, ACID: The City shall seek to minimize degradation to surface water quality and aquatic habitat of creeks, streams,' rivers, ponds, lakes and other water bodies; to preserve and enhance the suitability of such water bodies for contact recreation and fishing and to preserve and enhance the aesthetic quality of such waters by requiring the use of current Best Management Practices for control of stormwater and non-point runoff. 13. Policy EN-4, ACP: The City will regulate any new storm water discharges to creeks, streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and other water bodies with the goal of no degradation of the water quality or habitat of the receiving -waters, and where feasible seek opportunities to enhance the water quality and habitat of receiving waters. 14. Policy EN-13, ACP: The City shall consider the impacts of new development on water quality as part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. Impacts on fish resources shall be a priority concern in such reviews. 15. Policy EN-14, ACP: The City shall require the use of Best Management Practices to enhance and protect water quality as dictated by the City's Design~and Construction Standards and the Washington State Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. In all new development,, approved water quality treatment measures that are applicable and represent the best available-science or technology shall be required prior to discharging storm waters into the City storm drainage system or into environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. wetlands, rivers, and groundwater.) 16. Policy EN-27, ACP: The City recognizes the important biological and hydrological roles that wetlands play in providing plant and animal habitat, protecting water quality, reducing the need.for man-made flood and storm drainage systems, maintaining water quality, and in providing recreational, open space, educational and cultural opportunities. The City will consider these roles and functions in all new development and will also pursue opportunities to enhance the existing wetland system when these multiple benefits can be achieved. Page 2 of 6 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE SEP10-0024 (Continued) 17. Policy EN-29, ACP: The City shall consider the impacts of new development on the quality of wetland resources as part of its environmental review process and shall,require appropriate mitigation and monitoring measures of important wetland areas. Such mitigation may involve conservation, enhancement or restoration or replacement of important wetlands, and provisions for appropriate buffering. The goal of the mitigation should be no net loss of wetland functions and values. A permanent deed restriction shall be placed on any wetlands created or enhanced to ensure that they are preserved in perpetuity. 18. Policy EN-20, ACP: The City shall encourage the retention of vegetation and encourage landscaping I~ in order to provide filtering of suspended particulates. 19. Policy EN-34, ACP: The City shall discourage the unnecessary disturbance of natural vegetation in new development. 20. Policy CF-63, ACP: Public and quasi-public facilities which attract a large number of visitors (City Hall, museums, libraries, educational, permit or license offices, and health or similar facilities) should be sited in areas which are accessible (within % mile) by transit. 21. The applicant's report: GRCC Trades and Industry Facility Critical Areas Report prepared by Keith Fabing, Inc., dated August 6, 2010 identifies that the subject site has one wetland located at the SE corner of the site and an off-site wetland to the north, its buffer impacts the subject site. The onsite wetland is categorized as a, Class III wetland with a minimum 25 foot buffer. The off-site wetland has also been categorized as a Class III wetland with a minimum 25 foot buffer. The proposed project does not impact any buffer or wetland. The on-site wetland has been fenced at the 25 foot buffer line and appropriately signed as part of the improvements to 124th Avenue SE. The off-site wetland buffer that impacts the subject site -will require fencing and signage to prevent intrusion into the. The proposed project does not impact any buffer. or wetland area. 22. The subject site is relatively flat with the steepest slope at 3%. Detailed quantities of cut and fill have not been determined at this stage of the project. Based on preliminary design plans, cuts of five to ten feet would occur along a portion of the'west access driveway and fills up to approximately six feet would occur along the edge of the building on SE 320th Street. 23. Pursuant to ACC Chapter 15.74 and City of Auburn Design Standards, a temporary erosion and sediment control plan is required to be approved and implemented.on the site prior to and during site development. Potential significant adverse environmental impacts. associated with. erosion and sedimentation from this development is adequately mitigated through compliance with this regulation and mitigation measures outlined in this determination. 24. The applicant's report: Trades Replacement Complex Green River Community College Transportation Study, prepared by Transportation Engineering Northwest LLC, dated August 5, 2010, revised January 3, 2011 and,, May 13, 2011, and the trip generation analysis revised May 12, 2011 determined the trip generation for the proposed project and GRCC campus has decreased since 2003 and 2010. The trip generation rate for the GRCC campus is 2.11 per 1,000 gross floor area in the AM peak hour and 1.25 per 1,000 gross floor area in the PM peak hour. Frontage improvement will be required for the subject site frontage along SE 320th Street and 124th Avenue SE (which were completed in 2010). Mitigation proposed by the applicant also includes an internal trail system through the subject site that will connect into the City's future parking north of the subject site. The discussion about traffic impact fees on Page 29 and 30 of the revised traffic impact study is for reference purposes only. The City of Auburn will review the costs for the 124th Avenue SE improvements made by GRCC and then determine the eligibility of a potential traffic impact fee credit. Page 3 of 6 0 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE SEP10-0024 (Continued) The proposed project also impacts the intersection of 124th Avenue SE/SE 312th Street (City's TIP Project #41). The applicant is responsible for a proportional share of the improvements at this intersection based on the project's impact to the intersection. 0 2015 total entering volumes of 1,998 trips; 23 trips are new project trips and the proportional share is 1.2% The proposed project impacts the intersection of 124th Avenue SE/SE 314th Street and 124th Avenue SE/SE 316th Street. 0 ' 2015 total directional volumes on 124th Avenue SE of 1,368 trips of which 23 trips are new project trips equates to a proportional share of 1.7% A parking management program is recommended to be developed, submitted prior to building permit approval, and implemented for the Trades Replacement Complex. 25. King County Metro Route 180 currently serves Green River Community College and Lea Hill. An existing bus stop is located along the subject site frontage on SE 320th Street. 26. The "Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist No. SEP10-0024" is hereby incorporated by reference. 27. A geotechnical report was prepared by GeoEngineers dated June 3, 2010, for the proposed Trades Project. The report concluded that there are no unstable soils onsite and provided recommendations on designing the building foundation, wall foundations, and infiltration rates. 28. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted for the project by GeoEngineers and the report is dated May 19, 2010. A small residential building used to exist on the subject property and utilized an oil-burning heating system. Conclusions of the report determined there is a low to moderate risk of soil, groundwater, or surface water contamination at the subject-property in areas where historical heating oil underground, storagetanks (UST) may still be present. If an UST is discovered during excavation, then' property removal procedures, soil testing, and notification to Department of Ecology will be required. 29. A preliminary storm drainage report was prepared by Reid Middleton, dated August 2010. The subject site is within Ground Water Protection Zone 4 which means best management practices shall be implemented during construction for water resource protection. 30. Noise is regulated by Auburn City Code Chapter 8.28. The applicant's report: Green River Community College Trades.Building Noise Study prepared by The Greenbusch Group, dated August 20, 2010 analyzed the noise impacts from the proposed Trades Building. 31. The applicant's report: Cultural Resources Review for Lea Hill Park and Martin Property prepared by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. dated June 16, 2010 concluded there are no buildings or structures 50 Years or older that require further study and consideration as significant historical properties. 32. Green River Community College conducted an outreach program with the adjacent residential neighborhoods to the proposed Trades Project. The outreach program included. a series of three initial neighborhood meetings, which were held on consecutive weeks in April 2010 and a follow-up meeting held on June 23, 2010. Each meeting included a presentation about the proposal, a question/answer session, and additional opportunityto review.the presentation materials and discuss concerns with. the project team. The applicant took. the comments received at the three initial meetings, incorporated revisions to the site and building design, then presented those changes at the June 2010 follow-up meeting. The College held additional community meetings on August 24, 2010, January 13, 2011 and May 24, 2011. Page 4 of 6 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE SEP10-0024 (Continued) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: Staff has concluded that a MDNS may be issued. This is based upon the expanded environmental checklist and its attachments, and the Final Staff Evaluation of the Environmental Checklist". The MDNS is supported by Plans and. regulations formally adopted-by the City for the exercise of substantive authority under. SEPA. The MDNS also takes note' of.the extent to which. many local; State and Federal regulations and permit requirements will govern the project to mitigate its potential impacts, in accordance with WAC 197-11-158 and RCW 43.21C.240. 1. Recommendations outlined in the geotechnical report prepared by GeoEngineers will be incorporated into the final design. 2. Once the property transfer takes place between GRCC and the City of Auburn, a conservation easement will be required pursuant to ACC Section 16.10:090 over the on-site wetland and its buffer. 3. A final storm drainage report will be required when detailed civil plans are submitted for review. 4. A residential neighborhood is located adjacent to the subject site to the west, an existing daycare to the north, the main college campus to-the south, and, an existing residential neighborhood to the east. To, mitigated noise impacts as a~ result of the proposed project, mitigation measures have been incorporated into this decision. 5. Fire impacts generated by the project are mitigated through payment of the fire impact fee in effect at. the•time of building permit issuance. 6. As identified in the traffic impact analysis report, the proposed project will impact the transportation network. To mitigate those transportation impacts mitigation measures have been included in this decision. 7. As identified in the wetland delineation report and shown on the site plan, the project does not impact the on-site wetland and wetland buffer. The wetland and wetland buffers are left undisturbed. The proposal will not have significant adverse environmental impacts on fish and animals, water, noise, air quality, environmental, health, public services and utilities; and land and shoreline use provided the mitigation measures are met. CONCLUSIONS OF THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL The Responsible Official has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant impact on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c), only if all of the following conditions are met. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, other information, on file with the City of. Auburn, and existing regulations. This information is available to the public on request. These mitigation measures are required as authorized under the Substantive Authority of SEPA in accordance with the guidelines contained in Chapter 16.06 ACC and shall be implemented by the applicant. 1. If it is determined by the City that a transit bus out of lane pull out is needed in the future along the north side of SE 320th Street at the subject property, the current land owner or Green River Community College will be required to dedicate the right-of-way necessary to accomplish the improvement. 2. As part of the final site design or future master plan efforts by Green River Community College, pedestrian crossings from the Trades Complex site to the Green River; Community College main campus will need to be determined. Interim measures to discourage pedestrians from crossing mid block on SE 320th Street shall be incorporated into the final site design for the Trades Project until-the master plan efforts and future improvements to the main campus entrance are decided. Page 5 of 6 v MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE SEP10-0024 (Continued) 3. Green River Community College is responsible for their proportional share of improvements at the intersections of 124 h Avenue SE/SE 312th Street at 1.2% of the estimated project costs and 124th Avenue SE/SE 314th Street at 1.7% of the estimated project costs. An agreement with the City committing the College to their share of these improvements will be required to be signed by the applicant prior to building permit issuance. 4. Green River Community College shall implement the mitigation measures identified in the Noise Study prepared by The Greenbusch Group in the building design where applicable and prior to certificate of occupancy as follows: • Absorptive acoustical treatments shall be included in the design of the Trades Building. • Treatment on the ceiling with the use of acoustical roof decking shall be included. • The walls shall receive partial treatment (33%) in the upper areas. • For use in all work areas that contain noise-generating activities: 3-inch acoustical cellular decking and wall panels with 2 inch compressed fiberglass board shall be installed. • An 18 foot tall screen wall shall be constructed above the retaining wall west of the building running north-south for approximately 216 feet. • Absorptive treatment on the surface of the screen wall facing the buildings shall be installed. • An 8 foot tall solid fence shall be constructed along the north property line running east-west for approximately 265 feet to reduce the impact from the carpentry and welding class rooms when the roll-up doors are open for deliveries. This MDNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issuance. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on June 23, 2011. Any person aggrieved of the City's determination may file an appeal with the Planning and Development Department within 21 days of the comment period ending or by 5:00 p.m. on July 14, 2011. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Kevin Snyder, AICP POSITIONITITLE: Director Planning and Development Department ADDRESS: 25 West Main Street Auburn, Washington 98001 (253) 931-3090 DATE ISSUED: June 09.2011 SIGNATURE: Page 6 of 6 500 Foot Radius Notification SEP10-0024 MDNS h _J 14L f! r. r i. G pr ~ ~ it f Printed Date:6/712011 " ❑ PafCE~S Map Created by City of Auburn eGIS W E Information shown is for general. reference purposes only and does not necessarily represent exact geographic or cartographic s data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes no warranty as to its accuracy. Off 836 • ~ e Sea~tte ~i~.es o seattletimes.com PO Box 70, Seattle, WA 98111 :A. )0 AUBURN CITY OF-FINANCE DEPT ATTN CITY CLERK 25 WEST MAIN AUBURN, WA 98001 Re: Advertiser Account #30785204 Ad 797753000 Affidavit of Publication 4129880 / 3 STATE OF WASHINGTON Counties of King and Snohomish The undersigned, on oath states that he/she is an authorized representative of The Seattle Times Company, publisher of The Seattle Times of general circulation published daily in King and Snohomish Counties, State of Washington. The Seattle Times has been approved as a legal newspaper by orders of the Superior Court of King and Snohomish Counties. The notice, in the exact form annexed, was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper or papers and distributed to its subscribers during all of the said period. Newspaper Publication Date The Seattle Times 06/09/11 Agent Mgr'ltr-n -PP{•po;; Signature \ ~ ~ \ ~ \ \ \ \ \ l 1 q 1111 .c,\ot{tiOL,and savor to before me on TE) ()v (NOTARY URE) Notary Public an or- he tate of Washington, residing at Seattle isC. McKenna .o G Ni\~ii GEJL\ a poi,-1 Z' 102 $4, seattletimes.com Re Advertiser Account #30785204 Ad # 797753000 Ad TEXT'Mitigated Determination of a completed environmental costs. comment period ending or by ~of Non-Significance checklist, other information on file with 4.Green River Community 5:00 P.M. on July . APPLICATION REQUESTED: the City of College shall Implement 14,2011 the mitigation measures Rezone and Administrative Auburn, and existing identified in the Noise Published In the Seattle Times Use Permit; Future actions regulations. This Grading Permit and information is available to the Study prepared by The on June 9,2011 Building Permit public on Greenbusch Group as APPLICATION NUMBER: request. These mitigation follows: SEP10-0024, REV 0-0001, and measures are required c Absorptive acoustical ADM10-0004 as authorized under the treatments have been APPLICANT NAME: Substantive Authority of included in the design of the Green River Community SEPA in accordance with the a e s Building. on the ceiling with College, guidelines contained c 12401 SE 320th Street, in Chapter 16.06 ACC and shall athe use of coustical roof decking will be Auburn, WA 98092 be implemented by included. PROPERTY LOCATION: the applicant. Intersection of SE 320th Street 1.If it is determined by the City c The walls will receive partial and 124th Avenue that a transit treatment (33%) SE; Parcel Number: bus out of lane pull out is In theusupper areas. e in all work areas that 0921059020. needed in the future c For PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Green along the north side of SE 320th contain noise-generating activities: 3- River Community Street at the College proposes the subject property, the current cellular acoustical decking and wall panels construction of a 65,000 land owner or square foot Trades facility on a Green River Community College with 2 inch 9 acre site will be required compressed fiberglass board. that also includes, parking, to dedicate the right-of-way c An 18 foot tall screen wall is storm drainage necessary to proposed to be facilities, landscaping, and a accomplish the improvement. constructed above the retaining trail to connect 2. As part of the final site design wall west of the building running north-south with the future City Park locate or future north of the master plan efforts by Green for approximately subject property. The proposal River Community 216 feet. also entails a College, pedestrian crossings c Absorptive treatment on the rezone from R-5 (Residential 5 from the Trades surface of the du/acre) to I Complex site to the Green River screen wall facing the buildings. (Institutional) and an Community administrative use College main campus will need the north t tall solid fence along permit. to be determined. This public notice states the This could Include interim property line running east-west mitigation measures to for measures applicable to the discourage pedestrians from approxithe mately i pact f et to project. For a copy crossing mid block of the entire MDNS please on SE 320th Street until the the carpentry and welding class contact the Planning master plan efforts rooms when the and Development Department at and future improvements to the roll-up doors are open for 253-931-3090. main campus deliveries. This MDNS is issued under 197- CONCLUSIONS OF THE entrance are decided. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL 3.Graen River Community 2); the will not act on this The Responsible Official has College is responsible lead agency determined that the for their proportional share of proposal for 14 proposal does not have a improvements at days from the date of probable significant the intersections of 124th Issuance.Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on June impact on the environment, and Avenue SENSE 312th an Environmental Street at 1.2% of the project 09, 2011. Impact Statement (EIS) is not costs and 124th Any person aggrieved of the required under RCW Avenue SENSE 314th Street at may fi eeterminati with the 43.21C.030(2)(c), only if all of 1.7% of the project planning and the ios Development Department within conddititionns are met. This 21 days of the decision was made after review r v 1 ~R Il~~1~ ~i~ ` 2 ~ GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRADES BUILDING REZONE & ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SUBMITTED BY GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE SEPTEMBER 9, 2010 REVISED JANUARY 7, 2011 REVISED JUNE 17 2011 RECEIVED JUN 01 2011 CITY OF AUBURN PERMIT CENTER o Fact Sheet Project Title Green River Community College Trades Building. Proponent Green River Community College (State Board for Community & Technical Colleges) The application has been submitted with the consent of City of Auburn (current property owner). Project Location The site is located in the Lea Hill neighborhood of the City of Auburn. The proposal is located adjacent to the northwest quadrant of the intersection of S 320th Street and 124th Avenue S, on the site of what is currently Lea Hill Park. The Green River Community College main campus is directly south of the site, across SE 320th Street. Description of Proposal The proposal consists of a rezone and administrative use permit to allow development of a 65,000 square foot Trades & Industry facility on the 8.97-acre site. The buildings would be one story in height and would be constructed of concrete and metal. Access would be provided from 124th Ave. SE/318th Street and from 122°d Ave. SE/SE 320th Street. The site would provide parking for 160 vehicles. Approximately three acres of landscaping would be provided or retained around the perimeter of the site. Existing wetlands/buffers on the site would not be disturbed. Date of Implementation Construction would begin in 2013 and would be complete in 2015. Lead Agency & Contact Person City of Auburn, Planning & Development Department Elizabeth Chamberlain, Planning Manager (253) 931-3092, ehamberlain@aubumwa.gov Required Permits and Approvals ■ Zoning reclassification (from R-5 to Institutional) ■ Administrative Use Permit ■ Public Facility Extension Agreement ■ Building and construction permits ■ Puget Sound Clean Air Agency permit No state or federal permits or approvals have been identified at this time. Proposed SEPA Threshold Determination The City is considering issuing a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) for the proposal. Proposed mitigation measures are identified in the attached checklist and, with application of these measures, all impacts would be reduced below a significant level. i l Type & Timing of Subsequent Environmental Review No further SEPA review is anticipated for the Trades facility, unless new information is encountered or the proposal is changed significantly. There are several projects related to the proposal that would occur on adjacent sites. A proposed land exchange between the City and Green River Community College is discussed in this checklist. That proposal will undergo separate environmental review when the specific terms of the land exchange have been developed in greater detail. A boundary line adjustment has been proposed in anticipation of that land exchange. Construction of a new City park on the parcel to the north of the proposal will also be proposed by the City; that project would be funded by Green River Community College. Following community outreach and selection of a park design, that proposal would also be subject to SEPA review. Construction plans for road and pedestrian improvements to 124th Ave. SE, funded by Green River Community College, were completed in Fall 2010. That improvement project underwent independent SEPA review. Checklist Authors and Contributors Weinman Consulting LLC - Land Use Reid Middleton - Stormwater Richard Weinman Julian Dodge 9350 SE 68`h Street 728 134th Street SW Mercer Island, WA 98040 Everett, WA 98204 206.295.0783 425.741.3800 Environ - Air Quality Northwest Archaeological Associates - Historic Kurt Richman Resources 1902033 d Ave. W. Ann Sharley Lynnwood, WA 98036 5418 201h Ave. NW 425.412.1800 Seattle, WA 98107 206.781.1909 Keith Fabing, Inc. - Wetlands, Wildlife SBA Landscape Architects - Landscape Plan Keith Fabing Chuck Warsinske 4816 S. Alaska Street 3645 Wallingford Ave. N. Seattle, Washington 98118-1851 Seattle, WA 98107 206.721.5853 206.789.2133 GeoEngineers - Geotechnical, Phase I ESA S.M. Stemper Architects- Planning and Design Jessica Robertson Sara Wilder 2924 Colby Ave. 4000 Delridge Way SW Everett, WA Seattle, WA 98106 425.252.4565 206.624.2777 The Greenbusch Group - Noise Traffic Engineering NW - Transportation Adam Jenkins Michael Read 1900 West Nickerson Street P.O. Box 65254 Seattle, WA 98110 Seattle, WA 98155 206.378.0569 206.361-7333 Date of Checklist Submittal September 9, 2010, Revised January 7, 2011, Revised June 1, 2011 ii GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRADES BUILDING EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Table of Contents Fact Sheet i 1. Description of the Proposal 1 2. Expanded Elements of the Environment: Impacts and Mitigation Measures: 18 2.1 Land Use A. Land Use Patterns 18 B. Consistency with Plans, Policies & Regulations 22 2.2 Transportation 31 2.3 Environmental Health -Noise 63 3. SEPA Environmental Checklist Form 83 4. Proposed Mitigation Measures 102 Appendices: Technical Reports and/Memos A. Earth: Al - Geotechnical Report; A2 - Phase I Environmental Site Assessment B. Air Quality C. Wetlands D. Preliminary Storm Drainage Report E. Noise F. Cultural Resources G. Transportation: Trip Generation Study & Traffic Impact Study List of Figures 1. Location of Proposal 2 2. Conceptual Site Plan 4 3. Building Design Concept 5 4. Landscape Plan 8 5. Existing vegetation from West 9 6. Schematic of Acoustical Wall & Retaining Wall 10 7. View Simulation from West 11 8. View Simulation from Leah Hill Homes Club House 12 9. View Simulation from SE 320th Street 13 10. View Simulation from 124th Ave. SE 14 11. Vicinity Roadways 32 12. Channelization 35 13. Existing Peak Hour 36 14. Trip Distribution 47 15. Peak Hour Assignment 48 iii 16. Redistributed Trips 49 17. AM Peak Hour Impacts 50 18. PM Peak Hour Impacts 51 19. SE 320th Street Pedestrian Crossing 59 List of Tables 1. Level of Service Criteria at Intersections 34 2. Existing Intersection Levels of Service 37 3. Existing Roadway Level of Service 38 4. Historical Collision Rates 39 5. Existing Trip Generation Indexed to Gross Building Area 43 6. Net Increase in Trip Generation 43 7. Existing Trades Complex Trips ad Redistributed Trips 45 8. 2015 AM Peak Intersection Level of Service Impacts 52 9. 2015 PM Peak Intersection Level of Service Impacts 54 10. 2015 Roadway Level of Service AM Peak Hour Impacts 55 11. 2015 Roadway Level of Service PM Peak Hour Impacts 55 12. 2015 Proposed Action Peak Parking Demand 57 13. A-Weighted Levels of Common Sounds 65 14. Maximum Permissible Environmental Noise Levels 67 15. Permissible Noise Levels at Class A EDNA Properties 67 16. Permissible Noise Levels at Class B EDNA Properties 68 17. Descriptors Used for Code Compliance Assessment 69 18. Measurement Equipment 70 19. Sound Level Monitoring Locations 71 20. Existing Ambient Sound Levels 72 21. Measured Interior Program Sound Levels 73 22. Auto Body Program Sound Levels 76 23. Auto Maintenance Program Sound Levels 76 24. Carpentry Program Sound Levels 77 25. Manufacturing Program Sound Levels 77 26. Welding Program Sound Levels 78 27. Parking Lot Sound Levels 78 28. Mechanical Equipment Acoustical Design Criteria 79 29. Composite Project Sound Levels 80 30. Sound Level Increases 81 iv Green River Community College Trades Building 1. Description of Proposed Action A. Proposal The proposal is for a rezone and administrative use permit for an 8.97-accre parcel to allow construction of a new Trades facility ("Trades") for Green River Community College. The proposed buildings would replace an existing complex on the College Campus. If the rezone and administrative use permit applications are approved, land use would change from a public park to a College facility. The park would be replaced on the adjacent property to the north prior to the start of construction. B. Proponent The applicant for the rezone and administrative use permit is Green River Community College. The City of Auburn is the owner of the subject property and has consented to the application. C. Location of Proposal The location of the Trades proposal is shown on Figure 1. The proposed Trades facility is located on what is currently Lea Hill Park, at the intersection of SE 320th Street and 124`h Avenue SE, directly across the street from the Green River Community College campus. The 8.97-acre site is a single parcel (Assessor Parcel # 092105-9020) and consists of baseball and softball fields, tennis courts and a playground. Current access to the site is from 122°d Ave. SE/ 3201h Street, and from 124`h Ave. SE. D. Site Characteristics The site is generally flat and is developed with baseball and softball fields, tennis courts and a children's playground. In its current use, the proposed site is primarily pervious surface. The proposed facility would consist primarily of impervious surface and buildings, except for landscaped and undeveloped areas. A Class III wetland, approximately 33,000 square feet in area, including wetland buffer, exists in the southeastern corner of the site. A portion of an off-site wetland (approximately 2,100 square feet including buffer) extends into the northwestern corner of the site. The proposed site plan avoids impacts to wetlands and buffers; mitigation consistent with City code requirements would be proposed for any unanticipated unavoidable impacts. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 1 Figure 1 - Location ~s v t by; . _ [ a -3EtBthSt-_ 1.5 Trades ea ~i11 add 5E .SE 312th St Build ing, g . 15thStIE I f SEahSt~__ i Site ; ' SE 316th St g ^ _ - £ 8tt St NE 1' 1 SE 3,Wth Si r i r Main gWin St 4P Cam u5 4 ~ ~F~fJYfj f~, lake Hokn Sad y, `a S :':::::~:tL~.~'t..~_..,.•..~ ~ Brae ` GRCC Trades Building Vicinity. Plan: Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 2 Building Design. The two proposed buildings would be connected by a covered walkway. The buildings would be one-story in height, laid out in a V-shaped in design, and oriented to SE 320th Street. The eastern building would be 36 feet high and the western building 32 feet high. Some portions of both buildings would be lower to break up the overall mass of the facility. A conceptual building design is illustrated in Figure 3. The buildings' orientation and design are intended to keep the noise from activities E. Plan and Zoning Designations The site is currently designated as "Public" on the City's Comprehensive Plan map and is zoned Residential - 5 (Residential 5 dwelling units per acre). A rezone to the Institutional (I) classification is sought by the applicant; the I zone applies to the rest of the College campus. The zoning code identifies Colleges as a permitted use in the I zone subject to an administrative use permit. F. Purpose and Need for Proposal The existing Trades complex on the Green River Community College campus is housed in five separate buildings, totaling approximately 42,500 square feet. These buildings were constructed in the 1960's, are in a deteriorated condition, and are in need of replacement or rehabilitation to support the existing program. Initial design and permitting of the new Trades facility is occurring in 2010, and construction is anticipated to commence in 2013 and be completed by 2015. The existing Trades complex would be demolished when the new facility is operational. Relocation of the Trades program would also enable the College to reconfigure the College entrance on 124th Ave SE and SE 320th Street in the future. The new entrance would extend into the existing Trades site on campus after it is demolished. Additional traffic improvements would occur at this entrance as well. These improvements are being evaluated in an update to the College Campus Master Plan. Preliminary work on the updated Master Plan began in 2010 and is being coordinated with the City. G. Proposed On-Site Activities & Site Plan Programs. The new Trades facility would provide instruction in carpentry and manufacturing, automotive and auto body repair, and welding; these are the same programs that occur in the existing facility. The new facility would contain space for approximately 12 faculty and 291 FTE students. This is a net increase of 119 FTE students and 4 faculty Programs would operate on week days (from 8 AM until 10 PM). Classes would occur in three four-hour blocks, and students would remain in the Trades facility for the full four-hour block. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 3 1 Figure 2 Site Plan w ~'&111 LR-itiE W LU Md rD1"V*-6IM jo 31V.:9 v r QSQ 960E-26fA6 ~M NtlnBM "18 HL= 99 W91 < S ~ ~ Ci ~oi I9 }~j . t ~ • 3~~0o u~nn u~va N3aac= _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m }}i Eft(nine s30viu i 3 Q kk` ~ g 1p }GA :E:%•« ,z_... -r~ ! _ - r.:: l 1311 Il}ii Fill V a 1 A raeti~ % 7 I ' f 6` T. \ M_- ys-.-M' • I I J 1 I I N A Ii~~~ ~ :iEiE .'L'ti • • ~ - a= ! I ` , I x_ li3 ~11 ~ ~ I r r` . ~ i i .Ez r• : C •ciEP 3gg~3:.?'r::r 9 ' i ~i~y~ ` ~-~-Jam`.---~~~ • _ i _y ~ ;~4 ~ fj ~ I \ 131' _ ~ _ - '~!i ~ :1 3 `ray - I _ 71, I (A Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklists 4 i r . a m >r (n CD W X < GRCC Child Care Facility O N N C7 Gily of Auburn Entry O O Lea Hill Neigi rhoud Park r s i R. (D Q At r z New7rades 9uildin 1" 116TH 5T 9--- l O,. #a~~ , _S C/a A l ` : A n r 4i, i r,1• (p O CD= f~I r k R~ t t a Y I I .74 -t' hY f - - 4 4 F' k Wetlands sp- 320TH Entry Nature Trail (Connects to Park! Restricted Access, Fire Lane - &M. STEMPERNARCHUECiCS NEW TRADES BUILDING DESIGN CONCEPT A F,rilr••,u.•i Llailai AYYh+IIYY'I.aFY~i L I RI~L~' LAN"DSCAPE GREEN RIVER.COMMUNITY COLLEGE APRIL2010 ERnRCtIiTECTS I I I Site Plan. A conceptual site plan is shown in Figure 2. The footprint of the proposed Trades facility is approximately 65,000 square feet,(excluding parking). This represents a 22,426 square foot increase relative to the existing facility. An additional approximate 10,000 square feet of covered and enclosed interior is also included. The total development footprint would be approximately 222,000 square feet. Approximately 43 percent of the site would be undeveloped and retained in wetlands and landscaping. Building Design. The two proposed buildings would be connected by an entry canopy. The buildings would be one-story in height, laid out in a V-shaped in design, and oriented to SE 320th Street. The eastern building would be 36 feet high and the western building 32 feet high. Some portions of the building would be lower to break up the overall mass of the facility. A conceptual building design is illustrated in Figure 3. The buildings' orientation and design are intended to keep the noise from activities within the building and within the site. The building will also use construction techniques to limit noise. Exterior building materials would include concrete and metal wall panels. A primary design goal is to create a low impact, energy-efficient building while minimizing life- cycle costs. LEED silver certification will be sought. Access and Parking. Primary access to the site would be from 124th Ave. SE, at approximately SE 318th Street. A secondary access would be provided from 122°d Ave SE, and would provide access to a small visitor parking area; beyond the parking area, access would be restricted to emergency vehicles. Approximately 160 parking spaces would be provided on site.. The Auburn code does not currently contain a specific parking standard for College facilities. Parking supply is based on building capacity and the maximum number of students attending classes at any one time. Of the total supply, 92 parking stalls would be assigned for student and staff parking, 22 for visitor parking, and the balance for Trades program use (Automotive and Auto Body bullpen - cars that are in the process of being repaired). Landscaping. A conceptual landscape plan is included in the application and shown on Figure 4. It includes a variety of evergreen and deciduous trees (approximately 170, excluding parking lot trees), as well as shrubs, grass and groundcover throughout the site. Conifers would be 8'-10' in height. Dense vegetation would be provided along the western and northeastern portions of the site, in particular, to help screen and buffer the site from adjacent residential areas. Graphic representations of views from selected locations, existing and following construction, are shown in Figures 5 through 10. Existing healthy significant trees outside the building footprint would be retained. An irrigation plan is also included in the application. Trails. An eight-foot wide recreational trail, shown on Figure 2, would encircle the developed portion of the site and provide a connection to the City park proposed on the adjacent site. The trail would be constructed of asphalt or porous concrete, with some concrete sections. The trail would be approximately 2,100 linear feet in length and would be open to the public. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 6 Beginning on 124`h Ave SE, the trail would enter the site and connect to the new park in the approximate middle of the site. It would meander across the north portion of the site, then turn south and connect to the existing trail on the west side of the site. It would connect to SE 3201h Street just west of the pedestrian entrance to the Trades building. Noise Attenuation. A noise wall/retaining wall, approximately eighteen feet high, would be constructed on the west side of the building. It would attenuate noise associated with program activities on this side of the building which include automotive, auto body, and manufacturing - and buffer residential properties to the west. An 8-foot high solid wood fence would be constructed on the north side of the site, to buffer the child care facility and new park. Fencing & Screening. An eight-foot fence, constructed of metal, would enclose the paved area west of the buildings to provide security. The existing fence surrounding the ball fields would be removed. Waste disposal, recycling and scrap bins would be located on the northeast side of the east building adjacent to the parking area, and just north of the east building. Both would be enclosed and screened by fencing and/or landscaping. Autos would also be stored in the bullpen area in the northwest portion of the site. Views of this area would be screened by a proposed noise wall and by new and existing vegetation. Lighting. Lighting would be provided on the outside of the building and in parking areas. Parking lot lighting will be LED fixtures with 100 percent cutoff to minimize spillover, mounted on twenty-foot poles. Outdoor lighting will be "Dark Sky" compliant and would result in negligible light trespass onto neighboring properties. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 7 Figure 4 - Landscape Plan }r~! 9 f9t-OlOZ -N LaXOW NxOLMMO .!O 31V15 Q E A= 39 ONlowe s3t7d2LL 1 C R-1 I I I - ~ Ir: I x e: r 1 ' - , rr r e € 3# ► ' # t 3 tip ~ ~ ~ 1 hill Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 8 • Figure S -Existing Vegetation from West Yt [ r-i 1 ~YI xf ~ ~ 1 1 • I a I I i I I I 1r~ R Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 9 i Figure 6 - Schematic of Acoustical Wall r r ~ ~ 1 z z z W Cl) 10 73 KAY Z x IM ,a N J LU K Jr~~ ~ U 0 Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 10 Figure 7 - View simulation from West Z i i i 1`J ~ - qtr i lr i f ~ 1 q• it r r H 1 >J'f 3 I Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 11 Figure 8 -view simulation from Lea Hill Homes. Club House li I ~•-r 44, r.. IEu Wit= n Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 12 h Figure 9 View simulation from SE 320` St 1 t ~I A1=~.. IAV at, 1 i r: C ~ t i Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 13 Figure 10 - View simulation from 124`h Ave SE s~x } 1 I 'r F,. x Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 14 H. Community Outreach In conjunction with its planning for the site, the College developed an outreach program to provide the surrounding neighborhood with information about its plans for the new Trades facility, to answer questions, and to address concerns. Meeting materials is contained in Section 3 of the application. The outreach program included a series of three initial neighborhood meetings, which were held on consecutive weeks in April, 2010, and a follow-up meeting held on June 23, 2010. The initial meetings were advertised through an article in the Auburn Reporter, mailing postcards to over 1,300 residents in the, surrounding area, and through direct contact with several neighbors and neighborhood association members. Mailing lists were obtained from the City of Auburn. Information about the meetings and the Trades proposal was also posted on the GRCC website. The format of the three meetings in April included various stations with information about the initial concepts for site planning and building design, traffic and landscaping issues, the Trades program and associated college activities including campus safety. A station was also requested and made available to a representative of the Rainier Ridge Neighborhood Association. The meetings were led by a professional facilitator. Each meeting included a presentation about the proposal by representatives of the College administration and its design team, a question and answer session, and an additional opportunity to review presentation materials and discuss concerns with individual members of the design team. Questions and comments could also be provided on comment forms available at the meetings, or via email or letter. All questions and comments were recorded and are summarized in Section 3 of the rezone and administrative use permit application and are posted on GRCC's website. Average attendance at the meetings was approximately five persons, excluding College and design team representatives. A follow up community meeting was held on June 23, 2010. The meeting was led by a professional facilitator. Notice was provided via an announcement in the Auburn Reporter, mailings/phone calls to participants of the initial meetings, and notice on the College's website. The purpose of the meeting was to update interested neighbors on the progress of site planning, building design, and environmental analysis. Sign in sheets, meeting materials and a list of comments and questions are included in Section 3 of the application. To help keep neighborhood residents informed about the proposal, additional community meetings were held on August 24, 2010, January 13, 2011, and May 24, 2011. 1. Background Information Green River Community College Green River Community College (GRCC) is part of Washington State's system of thirty- four Community and Technical Colleges. The College is an agency of the state and is governed by a Board of Trustees. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 15 GRCC established its Auburn campus in 1966; it currently operates branch campuses in Kent and Enumclaw. It also operates a center in downtown Auburn. GRCC provides instruction in a variety of academic, professional and technical programs and provides continuing education. Enrollment at the Auburn campus is approximately 6,000 students (full time equivalents) and there are 130 faculty. Most students commute from surrounding areas of south King County. A limited number of rental housing units are provided for students in the College Corner apartments, located adjacent to the campus on the east side of 124th Ave NE and SE 320`h Street. City/College Memorandum of Understanding On February 5th, 2010, the College and the City executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that provides a framework for acquisition of the Lea Hill Park site by the College, transfer of an adjacent parcel of land owned by the College to the City (Martin property), and relocation and reconstruction of a new City park (Lea Hill Community Park) on this adjacent property. The Auburn Parks Department recently began public outreach and conceptual planning for the new park. The College's rezone and administrative use proposals are key elements for effectuating the intent of the MOU. Other Related Activities and Applications Independent of the Trades proposal, the College has constructed road, pedestrian and landscaping improvements to 124`h Ave. between SE 316th Street and SE 320th Street. Some utilities were relocated or reconstructed in conjunction with those improvements. The College has also submitted applications for a Boundary Line Adjustment and Boundary Line Elimination for the Martin property, to facilitate construction of the park. In addition, the College is beginning preparation of a Campus Master Plan, in cooperation with the City, to address long-term growth and capital facility needs. Among other improvements, the Master Plan will address a new Campus entrance, including a roundabout, on SE 320th Street and 124th Ave. SE. Relocation of the existing Trades building to the proposed site would make this new entrance and traffic improvement feasible. J. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Compliance Expanded Environmental Checklist An "expanded environmental checklist" combines the SEPA checklist, which is used for the great majority of public and private proposals in Washington, with expanded discussion of selected environmental issues. The expanded discussion is comparable to that typically contained in an environmental impact statement. It allows the applicant and the City to provide a fuller discussion of issues that are of particular concern, along with responses in the standard SEPA checklist form. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 16 For the Trades proposal, environmental issues receiving expanded treatment include land use, consistency with plans and regulations, noise and transportation. Section 2 of this expanded checklist presents the discussion of these issues first, and Section 3 contains the SEPA checklist form. Section 4 contains proposed mitigation measures. Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA, RCW 43.21C) requires that all government agencies, including cities, consider the environmental effects of their decisions before they take action. For all non-exempt proposals, the lead agency or permitting jurisdiction uses an environmental checklist form, which requires information about proposals and their effects on "elements of the environment", such as transportation, wetlands, noise and land use. The government agency uses the information in the checklist to determine and document whether the project will or will not result in "probable significant adverse impact" on the environment. A determination of non-significance (DNS) is issued for projects that do not result in significant impacts. The City is considering issuing a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) for the Trades proposal. An MDNS is used when the applicant incorporates mitigation measures into the proposal and/or identifies additional mitigation measures, that would reduce all impacts below a significant level. Related Proposals There are several projects related to the proposal that would occur on adjacent sites. A proposed land exchange between the City and Green River Community College is discussed in this checklist. That proposal will undergo separate environmental review when the specific terms of the land exchange have been developed in greater detail. A boundary line adjustment has been proposed in anticipation of the land exchange. Construction of a new City park on the parcel to the north of the proposal will also be proposed by the City; that project would be funded by Green River Community College. Following community outreach and development of a park design, that proposal would also be subject to SEPA review. Construction of road and pedestrian improvements to 124`h Ave. SE, funded by Green River Community College, were completed in fall 2010. This project underwent independent SEPA review. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 17 2. Expanded Discussion of Impacts and Mitigation This chapter of the Environmental Checklist includes a discussion of impacts and mitigation measures for Land Use, Transportation and Noise. Supporting documents for the Noise and Transportation discussions are contained in Appendices. 2.1 Land Use A. Land Use Patterns Affected Environment The project site is located in the Lea Hill neighborhood of the City of Auburn, which was annexed to the City of Auburn in 2008. SR 18 and the Green River Community College campus generally bound the neighborhood on the east. The neighborhood is primarily residential in character and predominated by single family residences at varying densities. Some newer multi-family development and commercial land uses are located along SE 312th, a major arterial that connects Lea Hill with SR 18 to the east and downtown Auburn to the west. The Green River Community College (GRCC) campus occupies approximately 212 acres south of SE 320th Street. The majority of the campus is leased from the Department of Natural Resources. The campus is substantially developed. The existing campus boundaries are not legislatively defined or limited, but are suggested by the Institutional zoning district that the City applied to the campus upon annexation. An additional approximate 100 acres located south of the developed campus is comprised of undeveloped and steeply sloped land owned by DNR and the College. This property remains in unincorporated King County and is zoned for Rural uses. Land uses to the east of SR 18 include Pacific Raceways and a mix of rural and suburban residential land uses. The GRCC campus was established in 1966; branch campuses are now located in the Cities of Kent and Enumclaw. The College provides instruction in a variety of academic, professional and technical programs and provides continuing education. Current enrollment is approximately 6,000 FTE students. Students typically commute from surrounding areas of South King County. A limited number of rental units are provided in the Campus Corner apartments, located on the east side of 124th Ave SE and SE 320th Street, and in residences in the surrounding area. The College campus currently contains approximately 638,000 square feet of building space. The site of the proposal is currently the location of Lea Hill Park, which was originally built by King County in the 1970's and is developed with ball fields and a playground. The park was acquired by Auburn in 2002. Access is provided from 124th Ave. SE and Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 18 122nd Ave. SE. The approximate eight-acre property bounding the site on the north (Martin property) is owned by Green River Community College and is comprised of three parcels containing a child care center, a residence and several outbuildings, and pasture used for grazing cows. The College and the City are discussing a land exchange which would transfer a portion of this property to the City in exchange for the Lea Hill Park site. A new City park would be constructed on the Martin property in 2011, funded by the College. The City is currently conducting a public outreach program to help plan the design of the new park. Residential subdivisions developed at urban densities are located west of the site, including the Lea Hill Homes community. Access to this residential area is provided from SE 316th Street, SE 320th Street, and 116th Ave. SE. There are several large parcels of land located between SE 316th Street and SE 312th Street, east and west of 124th Ave SE. These properties may be constrained by critical areas. Significant Impacts The range of potential land use impacts associated with the rezone and planned development of the site for a Trades building includes direct, indirect and cumulative effects. The major direct impact would be displacement of the existing Lea Hill Park by development of an educational facility on the site. This impact would be fully mitigated and compensated for, however, by replacement of the park on the adjacent site; construction of the new park would be funded by the College. As noted previously, the City and the College have signed an MOU which is expected to lead to transfer of the Lea Hill Park property to the College and the adjacent Martin property to the City, and construction of a new City park in 2011. Construction of the Trades building would occur in 2013. Any impact, therefore, would be compensated for in advance. Construction of the Trades building would temporarily generate dust, noise and traffic proximate to the site, which could cause annoyance to neighbors. Construction would be subject to numerous City regulations and mitigation requirements. Construction of the new park is a separate project and will undergo its own permitting and environmental review. It is discussed below under cumulative impacts, however. The character of the site would change from a park with open area to a one-story educational building, with parking and landscaping. The park has been at this location since the 1970's and the change will be noticeable to residents. This change is unavoidable, however, and some residents may consider the change to be negative. Land use conflicts can occur when land uses of different character or intensity are located proximate to one another. These contrasts also frequently occur where different land use/zoning districts abut one another. Impacts may be related to traffic, noise or emissions generated by operation and construction of a more intensive land use, or to contrasts in bulk, scale or character. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 19 The Trades proposal represents an increase in the size of the campus and in the intensity of campus development, assuming that the rezone site is considered part of the campus. The existing campus is approximately 212 acres in area and the 9-acre Trades site represents a 4.5 percent increase in area. The existing campus contains an estimated 638,000 square feet of building area, and the 65,000 square-foot Trades building represents an approximate 10 percent increase in building area. The existing Trades are slated for removal; following this demolition, the building area increase would decrease' to approximately 4.5 percent. The proposal would use space more intensively and more efficiently, but the overall increase in intensity is not considered significant or adverse. The Trades building would be approximately 65,000 square feet in area and would be designed with high quality materials. It would be comparable in size (square feet) to newer buildings on the campus, such as the Mary Nelson Science Learning Center and Salish Hall. Nevertheless Trades would look like an educational or institutional facility and would be greater in bulk than adjacent single family structures. Proposed building height (36 feet high on the east and 32 feet high on the west) would be comparable to a typical single family residence, so the building would not loom over adjacent structures. An objective of the site plan is to screen and buffer the building from the view of adjacent residences and park users. Extensive landscaping, including planting of large trees, would be constructed on the western portion of the site to screen views from Lea Hill Homes. Existing vegetation on the eastern and western portions of the site would be preserved and enhanced. Noise walls or solid fences would also be constructed on the western and northern portions of the site. These techniques would reduce land use conflicts, and view and noise impacts for adjacent residents, the day care facility and users of the new park. The new Trades building will be visible to drivers and pedestrians on SE 320`h Street, however, and it will appear as an element of the campus. This visibility in itself is not considered to be an adverse impact. Indirect impacts are those which can result when a proposal combines with other factors (e.g., market economics) to influence the actions of others. Indirect impacts include the possibility that one action - i.e., approval of the Trades rezone - may act as a precedent or inducement for similar actions in the area by others. Potential indirect land use impacts include pressure for development of vacant land or redevelopment of existing uses, or that approval of the proposal will lead to further expansion of the campus. These possibilities are addressed in turn. In general, a community college facility is not the type of development that typically attracts other development to an area. This more often happens in conjunction with retail facilities. The campus itself is relatively self- contained and provides for most student needs. GRCC has been located in the same neighborhood since 1966, and the Trades program currently exists on campus in a complex of old buildings. The new facility would result in a minor increase in faculty and FTE enrollment, and the student population is primarily transient in nature. It would not, therefore, be likely to significantly expand the existing market for goods or services (e.g., convenience stores, restaurants) that serves the college community. Any new commercial activities would be likely to locate on sites that are zoned for commercial Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 20 use, such as along SE 312th Street, and would not compete with or be likely to displace existing residential uses. There are a number of large, partially developed parcels in the area - generally located north of SE 316th Street that could be redeveloped for residential use based on existing zoning. The Trades facility, which is an institutional use, is not likely in itself to create pressure for redevelopment of these sites. As noted previously, most GRCC students are commuters and do not create a significant demand for housing. Any pressure for redevelopment of these large parcels would be related to larger economic and market forces related to population growth and housing demand in Auburn. Similarly, Trades is not likely to create a disincentive to future development or redevelopment. The College has been a presence in the neighborhood since 1966 and does not appear to have inhibited growth. It is also possible that approval of the rezone could serve as a precedent for further expansion of the GRCC campus. The College has no plans for further expansion off the main campus. The College has an existing Facilities Master Plan that was updated in 2010. Projected growth for the next decade is expected to be accommodated on the existing campus, primarily through building upgrades and expansions. Relocation of Trades will also provide additional space for development on campus. The College and the City are now beginning an update of the Master Plan that will have a twenty-year time horizon and will be legislatively adopted. That document will establish the College's long-term boundaries. As noted previously, GRCC's property ownership includes undeveloped lands south of the existing campus. This property is within unincorporated King County and is designated and zoned for Rural use. Colleges are not a permitted use in the Rural area, although some forms of recreational and cultural facilities are conditionally permitted. This property also contains physical development limitations in the form of steeply slopes and erosion hazards. Although this property could hypothetically be developed in the future, subject to obtaining development approval from King County, there are no plans to do so. Cumulative impacts include those produced by the project in combination with other known, planned and vested projects in the general vicinity. There are four known projects that are proposed, contemplated or pending, or recently completed in the general area: (1) road and pedestrian improvements to 124th Ave. SE, recently completed; (2) a new fire station for the Valley Regional Fire Authority, on 124th Ave. SE north of SE 316th Street, with construction expected to begin in 2010; (3) a 1-acre professional office building on the west side of 124th Ave. S, south of S.312 1h Street; and (4) actions associated with the proposed City-College MOU, including completion of the property exchange, and construction of a new Lea Hill Community Park on the Martin property, in 2011. The boundaries of the Martin property would also be adjusted in conjunction with this action. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 21 These are separate projects which will undergo individual SEPA review. Cumulatively, Trades together with these projects are not expected to result in significant adverse land use impacts. Individually or collectively, they would not directly change the type or character of land uses occurring in the Lea Hill neighborhood, and would not serve as attractors for other development. The 124`h Ave. SE improvements are intended to reduce traffic congestion and enhance pedestrian safety and amenities and would benefit land uses in the neighborhood. Each project would produce temporary off-site impacts in the form of traffic, dust and noise during their respective construction periods. Such impacts would be mitigated through limitations on construction hours of operation, and implementation of construction best management practices, as required by adopted regulations. Depending on final construction schedules, some project construction could overlap with other projects, which would increase impacts temporarily. If construction of these projects was sequential, on the other hand, identified proximity impacts would occur incrementally over a longer period of time. Mitigation Measures Pursuant to the City-College MOU, the park would be replaced on an adjacent site in advance of construction of Trades, so displacement of Lea Hill Park will not be a significant impact. The primary mitigation measures that is incorporated into the proposal is to use extensive landscaping and berming to buffer and screen the site from the views of neighboring residents. No other probable significant impacts to Land Use have been identified and no further mitigation is warranted. B. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations 1. City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Designation Summary: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the site of the proposal as Public and Quasi-Public. The designation applies to developed parks as well as to churches and schools. Uses associated with educational institutions for vocational educational purposes are recognized as a public use. The main GRCC campus is also designated Public and Quasi-Public on the Land Use Map. Discussion: The proposal would be consistent with the Public and Quasi Public Land Use designation. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 22 Essential Public Facilities Policies a Summary: "Essential public facilities" (EPF) are. land uses which are provided by a public agency and which are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state educational facilities, correctional facilities and regional transportation facilities. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that every city comprehensive plan include a process for siting such facilities; siting may not be precluded. The Capital Facilities chapter of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan contains three EPF policies that are relevant to the GRCC proposal: Policy CF-65 sets forth a siting process for locating a new EPF within the City. It generally requires a special area plan process to consider site alternatives, evaluate impacts, identify mitigation and involve the public in siting. Policy CF-66 applies to a proposed change to an existing EPF, and requires the Planning Director to make a determination as to whether the proposal would result in a significant change of use or intensification of the use. Criteria for the determination include impacts on the surrounding area, and the potential for future expansions or additions. Changes that are determined to be significant are reviewed through a special area plan process (CF-65). Changes that are determined to be insignificant are reviewed through the City's standard development review procedures. Policy CF-67 states that EPFs should be allowed in zoning districts in which they will be compatible and impacts can be mitigated. The City Council may waive specific development conditions if the facility can be made compatible. Discussion: Green River Community College is a public agency and is proposing construction of a regional educational facility. It is, therefore, subject to the City's EPF policies. Because the College is an existing facility and is proposing actions that will lead to an expansion of this facility, it is subject to CF-66. A special area plan overlay does not apply to the college campus. The Planning Director will determine whether the proposal represents a significant change or intensification of use, based on consideration of impacts. It is noted, however, that the proposed facility would replace an existing complex of buildings which accommodates the same activities and intensity of use. The existing buildings are old, deteriorated and in need of replacement. The Trades rezone proposal represents an approximate 9-acre, or 4.1 percent, increase to the existing 212- acre GRCC campus located within the City of Auburn. The approximate 24,500 square foot net increase in the size of the Trades facility represents an approximate 3.8 percent increase to the existing amount of developed building space on campus (638,000 square feet). Potential impacts to the neighborhood are considered in this checklist, and measures to avoid or otherwise mitigate significant impacts have been incorporated into the proposed site plan and building design. As discussed below, the site plan and building are being Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 23 designed to be consistent with the requirements of the Institutional zoning classification. The College, in cooperation with the City, is also commencing a Campus Master Planning process to plan for its future growth and will address boundary issues in this planning process. No further expansions beyond the existing campus boundaries are anticipated at this time. Land Use Chapter - Neighborhood Quality Policy Summary: The Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan addresses a wide range of issues and goals, including City Expansion and Annexation, Urban Form, Residential Development, Neighborhood Quality, Commercial Development, Downtown, Industrial Development, and Urban Redevelopment. Of these, Neighborhood Quality (Goal 8), Policy LU-42 is the only one relevant to the proposal and is discussed below. Goal 8. Neighborhood Quality: To maintain and protect all viable and stable residential neighborhoods. LU-42 Regulatory decisions in all residential neighborhoods shall result in maintenance or enhancement of the neighborhood's residential character. a. The location of uses other than those permitted outright shall only be allowed as specified in this comprehensive plan and in the zoning code. b. Approval of any non-residential land use shall occur only after a public hearing process. c. The City recognizes the important role that public facilities (such as sidewalks, neighborhood parks and elementary schools) and limited scale quasi-public uses (such as smaller churches and daycare centers) play in maintaining viable residential neighborhoods. d. Single family detached residential neighborhoods should be protected from intrusion by non-residential or large scale multi-family uses. LU-45 Limited commercial uses (such as daycare centers and professional offices) may be permitted, but only appropriate conditions, by means of conditional use permits when landscaping and design features can be used to minimize impacts on surrounding uses and the site is: a. Along the border of residential neighborhoods; or b. In specific areas where site specific conditions may limit the use of the site for residential uses; or c. Along arterials transecting residential neighborhoods. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 24 Discussion: The proposal is a rezone of the property to the .Institutional (I) zone and approval of an administrative use permit. Colleges are a non-residential use and are conditionally permitted in I zone subject to approval of an administrative use permit. According to the City's land use procedures, a rezone is a Type IV/quasi-judicial decisions which requires a public hearing by the by the Hearing Examiner before the Examiner makes a recommendation to the City Council (ACC 14.03.040). The City Council may also hold a closed-record hearing. This process appears to be consistent with LU-42a and LU-42b. The proposal would be located on the site of an existing neighborhood park. The neighborhood park would be replaced on the property immediately to the north, pursuant to the provisions of a MOU between the City and GRCC. The College would fund construction of the new park. The Auburn Parks Department is in the process of soliciting neighborhood input on the design of the new park. These actions would maintain the viability of the neighborhood, consistent with LU-42c. In addition, as part of a separate project, the College constructed improvements to 124`h Ave. SE that include sidewalks and other neighborhood amenities. The surrounding neighborhood is primarily single family in character and the proposal is a college facility, which is a non-residential use. The issue raised by LU-42d is whether expansion of the campus to the proposed site would undermine the integrity or viability of the neighborhood for single family residences; this is not likely to occur. The College has been an integral part of this same neighborhood for more than 40 years and has obviously not undermined its viability. Relatively little redevelopment has occurred in the surrounding residential neighborhoods and the College may contribute to this overall stability. New multi-family residential and mixed-use development has occurred in some nearby locations - for example, along SE 312`h Street that are considered appropriate in the Comprehensive Plan; the existence of the College has not been a hindrance to this redevelopment. The design of the facility incorporates numerous elements - including one-story building height, high quality/green design and extensive landscaping - that would protect surrounding residences from any adverse impacts, such as noise, associated with operations. The facility would also add to overall campus parking supply and would help reduce any existing spill-over parking effects in the surrounding neighborhood. While the proposal is an institutional use and not a commercial use according to the City's zoning code, there is an analogy to the intent of Policy LU-45 regarding locatin and designing commercial uses to minimize land use impacts. For example, SE 320` Street does transect and is a boundary of the residential neighborhood, and the Trades building would be located along this border. In addition, as noted above, the proposal includes landscaping and design features that would minimize impacts. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 25 Environment Chapter The Environment chapter of the Comprehensive Plan contains goals, objectives and policies relating to protecting water resources, wetlands, environmental nuisances, and hazards (flooding, landslides, erosion, hazardous materials, and endangered species) and air quality. This chapter is implemented by the city's critical area regulations (ACC 16.10), noise regulations (ACC 8.28), stormwater management manual and environmental performance standards (ACC 18.31.180). The relationship of the proposal to those regulations is discussed in subsections 3 and 4 below. Parks, Recreation & Open Space Chapter Summary: The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan expresses the City's commitment to provide and maintain a comprehensive system of parks and open spaces that meets the needs of residents (Goal 21). The system is described in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (2005), which contains an inventory of city park and recreation facilities. It also identifies long range needs to meet expected population growth, and identifies land and capital improvement required to meet City standards. A range of needed improvements are identified for Lea Hill Park, including landscaping, repair and replacement of existing playground facilities, irrigation, a trail, and a number of amenities. Discussion: The Trades proposal would replace an existing complex of buildings on campus and represents an incremental and minor increase in faculty and students. While GRCC students use Lea Hill Park, along with neighborhood residents, the proposal would not result in an increase in demand for neighborhood park and recreation activities. As noted previously, the City and GRCC have executed an MOU that will, if completed, allow the College to acquire the Lea Hill Park property in exchange for an adjacent property which would be developed for a new neighborhood park, at the College's expense. The Trades project would not go forward at this location unless the property exchange is completed and the new Lea Hill Community Park constructed on the adjacent property. Therefore, the rezone and construction of the Trades building would not result in any adverse impact to park and recreation facilities. The Auburn Parks Department recently began an outreach program which will engage the neighborhood in designing the new Lea Hill Community Park to meet local needs. When design has been completed, the City will also update the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan to reflect the new park and facilities. 2. City of Auburn Zoning Regulations Summary: The proposed rezone would apply the Institutional (I) zoning classification to the subject property (ACC 18.44). The purpose of this district is to provide areas for educational, governmental, theological, recreational, cultural and other public and quasi- Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 26 public uses are appropriate (18.44.010). Colleges and universities are permitted subject to issuance of an administrative use permit. , Development standards in the I district include a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, maximum building height of 45 feet (for non-residential uses) and maximum lot coverage of 35 percent. Minimum setbacks are established as 20 feet front yard, 5 feet side/ interior, 10 feet side/street, and 25 feet rear. Supplemental standards include a prohibition of on-site hazardous substance processing and handling, or hazardous waste treatment or storage, unless incidental to a permitted use. Parking requirements are established in ACC 18.52. The code does not currently contain a parking standard for colleges and universities; these may be determined by the Planning Director on a case-by-case basis. A landscape plan is required as part of the administrative use permit application. Code requirements include different types and amounts of landscaping along street frontages and in parking areas. In the requested I zone, landscaping is not specifically required when adjacent to the R-7 zone. Significant trees, as defined in ACC 18.05.030.E, are required to be retained. The majority of properties in the Lea Hill neighborhood are also subject to the Lea Hill zoning overlay. The overlay provides supplemental development standards that apply to residential zoned properties. According to the Comprehensive Zoning Map, the overlay does not apply to the site of the proposal. Discussion: The proposed facility is part of GRCC's curriculum and is an educational use; it is, therefore, within the range of uses considered appropriate in the I zoning district. The College has submitted an application for an administrative use permit as required by the Code. The proposal conforms to the development standards of the Institutional district, including building height, setbacks and maximum lot coverage. The proposal does not include the processing or treatment of hazardous substances. As identified in Section 3 of the Expanded Environmental Checklist, some materials used in various Trades programs - such as paint - are considered hazardous or toxic, and small amounts of these substances will be stored on site. Storage and safety systems are described in the checklist. Use of these materials is considered incidental to the permitted use and is consistent with code requirements. Parking demand is evaluated in the Transportation section (2.3) of this checklist, and is based on the size and utilization of the proposed building. The amount of parking proposed is based on accommodating Trades-related demand (students and faculty), program space, and some visitor parking. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 27 A conceptual landscape plan, shown in Figure 4, has been submitted with the rezone and administrative use applications. The amount of landscaping proposed would generally meet or exceed code requirements. Existing healthy trees, including significant trees, outside the development footprint would be retained. An estimated 39 significant trees would be removed within the development footprint, however. Significant additional landscaping, including evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs, is proposed. 3. Critical Areas/Wetlands Summary: Regulated "critical areas" include wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, geologic hazards (landslide, erosion, seismic), groundwater protection areas and flood hazard areas. The City Code (ACC 16.10) contains regulations and standards that are intended to protect valuable environmental resources, to ensure the safety of life and property, and to require mitigation for unavoidable impacts. Most development activity is subject to the regulations. Discussion: The site does not contain regulated streams, wildlife habitat, geologic hazards or flood hazards. It does contain two wetlands and is within a groundwater protection zone. These resources are discussed below. Wetlands. Two wetlands are located on the site: a 33,000 square foot (including buffer) Class III wetland in the southeastern portion of the site, and a 2,100 square foot portion (including buffer) of an off-site Class III wetland in the northwestern portion of the site. The site plan avoids intrusion or impacts to either wetland or their buffer. Construction was recently completed on an independent proposal to improve 124`h Ave. SE between SE 320`h Street and SE 316`h Street. As part of that proposal, the existin playground in Lea Hill Park was replaced by a stormwater facility for the improved 124 Ave. SE, and this stormwater facility also impinges on the wetland buffer in the southeastern portion of the site. The road improvement project addressed impacts to the wetland buffer and proposed mitigation for these impacts. The playground will be replaced with a new playground in the new Lea Hill Community Park located north of the Trades site. The road project and required mitigation measures will be completed prior to construction of the proposed Trades facility. Groundwater Protection. All land within the City is classified as being within one of four groundwater protection zones, designated as 1 through 4. The classification is based on the location of water supply aquifers, wells or springs, and the time of travel of a substance released on the surface to the water resource (measured in years). The intent of the regulations is to protect the City's primary aquifers and water supply. Lands within zones 1, 2 and 3, which are primarily located on the Valley floor, are subject to limitations on the storage, handling and use of hazardous substances. The Trades site is within groundwater protection zone 4, in which the travel time is 10 years or more. Regulations require that business owners implement best management practices for water resource protection. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 28 4. Environmental Performance Standards (ACC 18.31.180) Summary: ACC 18.31.180 contains performance standards that apply to industrial, processing assembly and similar type uses typically found within the industrial zone. They can also apply to other uses in other zones. Although the proposal is not an industrial use and would not be located within an industrial zone, the discussion in the Expanded Environmental Checklist evaluates the proposal relative to these standards for noise and air quality. The Code's noise provision (ACC 18.31.180.B) incorporates the State noise standards contained in WAC 173-60. These regulations establish noise limits based on the use of the sound source and adjacent properties. The baseline noise standard for adjacent residential properties is 57 decibels (dBA), and the standard for the proposed park is 60 dBA. The Code also contains regulations that prohibit noise that is considered a public disturbance, which is defined to include the creation of frequent, repetitive or continuous sounds in connection with the testing, operation or repair of motor vehicles within a residential district (ACC 8.28). The regulations also limit construction noise before 7 AM or after 10 PM on weekdays. The regulations do not contain any specific noise limits. The proposal would be located adjacent to but not within a residential district. Performance standards related to air quality limit or prohibit emissions related to odorous gases and matter (18.31.180.F), smoke and particulates (18.31.180.G), and toxic gases (18.31.180.J). Discussion: Noise. Noise analysis performed for the proposed project, included in section 2.3 of the Expanded Environmental Checklist, indicates that the proposal would comply with state and City noise standards with incorporation of proposed mitigation measures into the project design. Measures include construction of a noise wall and a solid fence on the western and northern portions of the site, respectively. Special construction materials would also be used for portions of the building accommodating noisier program activities. Air Quality. The air quality analysis, contained in Appendix B of the Expanded Environmental Checklist, concludes that the vehicle emissions associated with the Trades proposal would operate within applicable air quality standards. Operational emissions would be controlled through a variety of means, including the use of dust and aerosol baghouses to control particulate emissions from painting and machining/woodworking; and collection hoods and filter systems to capture welding fumes. The proposal would also require a permit from the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA), which would limit particulate emissions and impacts to neighboring land uses from painting, woodworking and machining operations. Based on field observations, odors from Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 29 existing Trades operations were not observable outside the building. PSCAA regulations would also prohibit off-site odors from sources such as glues, solvents and paint. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 30 2.2 TRANSPORTATION This analysis of transportation impacts was prepared by Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC (TENW) (January 2011). The scope of the study was determined by the City of Auburn. The complete study, including modeling data, is contained in Appendix G of the Expanded Environmental Checklist. Existing Conditions This section describes existing transportation system conditions in the study area. It includes an inventory of existing roadway conditions, traffic volumes, intersection and roadway levels of service, collision history, public transportation services, nonmotorized transportation facilities, and planned roadway improvements. Existing Roadway Conditions The street system in the vicinity of the Trades site is shown in Figure 11. The following paragraphs describe existing arterial roadways that would be used as major routes for site access. Roadway characteristics are described in terms of number of lanes, posted speed limits and shoulder types and widths. 124th Avenue SE is a north-south roadway. The roadway consists of range of section between two and four travel lanes and varying shoulder conditions. Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks are provided on the east side of the street in the vicinity of SE 320`h Street and on the west side between SE 3121h Street and SE 320th Street. A two-way, center left-turn lane is provided north of SE 312`h Street and halfway to SE 300 Street. Bicycle lanes are also provided in the vicinity of SE 312`h Street and SE 3181h Street. The speed limit is posted at 30 mph. Recent improvements have been made to the arterial and are described later in this report. SE 320th Street is a two-lane, east-west roadway. In the vicinity of the GRCC Campus, a 12-foot bus lane is provided on the south side of the street, east of the western shipping/receiving driveway. The roadway generally consists of 11- to 12- foot travel lanes with 3-foot paved shoulders and 6-foot gravel shoulders on the north side of the street, and curbs, gutters, and sidewalks on the south side of the street adjacent to the GRCC Campus. A two-way, center left-turn lane exists for the GRCC West Entrance driveway and 120`h Avenue SE. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. SE 318th Street is a two-lane, east-west roadway that "dead-ends" within an existing residential subdivision east of the site. Curbs, gutters and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street; the pavement width totals 46 feet between gutter lines. The speed limit is 25 mph. SE 316th Street is a two-lane, east-west roadway. Curbs, gutters and sidewalks are provided on the north side of the street and 2-foot gravel shoulders are provided on the south side of the street. West of 124`h Avenue SE, the total pavement width is approximately 36 feet. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 31 - 18 SE 288th iSt ~ uJ L %A W LfJ W CA > 1 to Q ; d- Q~! m N C t!) G - N (L.l z - ~V i SE 304th St Q i 7- -5 CO F 3OW& Trades Q Replacement Lea Hlft Rd SE E 312th St, v! i sE31 15th str Complex 'I Ith € 2P r s € ISE 31,6th St ~ sc3+eu, spa 8.th St4itm1 I i SE i320th~ St ~a L uJ \ ; f ILA ain St Main ~ - Q t GRCC Campus a►nv Lake Holm Rd ! Y.I ~ 3 164 H 4 Q ~ th $ $ I Leclend mi Study Intersection (Not to Scale) GRCC Trades (jW Transportation Figure 1 1 Replacement Complex Engineering NorthWest, LLC Project Site Vicinity Auburn, WA Traffic Impact Study Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 32 SE 314th Street is a local access roadway. Curbs, gutters and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street with a total width of roughly 36 feet. The speed limit is posted at 25 mph. .I SE 312th Street is a two-lane, east-west roadway. Travel lanes are 11 feet with 4- to 6-foot paved shoulders. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Lea Hill Road SE is a two-lane, east-west roadway with 11-foot travel lanes and 4- to 6-foot paved shoulders. The speed limit is posted at 35 mph. 105th Place SE is a two-lane, north-south roadway with 11-foot travel lanes and 4- foot paved shoulders. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Existing Traffic Volumes Figure 12 summarizes existing channelization and traffic control at the all study intersections. Figure 13 highlights existing year 2009 a.m. and p.m. peak period turning movements. All Traffic Data Gathering, Inc., Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. and TENW conducted a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement counts during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour in 2009. Intersection Level of Service Level of service (LOS) serves as an indicator of the quality of traffic flow at an intersection or road segment. The LOS grading ranges from A to F, such that LOS A is assigned when minimal delays are present and low volumes are experienced. LOS F indicates long delays and/or forced flow. Table 1 summarizes the delay range for each level of service at signalized and unsignalized intersections. The methods used to calculate the levels of service are described in the updated 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board). The measure of effectiveness for signalized intersections is average control delay, defined as the total time vehicles are stopped at an intersection approach during a specified time period divided by the number of vehicles departing from the approach in the same time period. Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, and increased travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made of up a number of factors that relate to traffic control, geometries, traffic demand, and incidents. Total control delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that would result during base conditions (i.e., the absence of traffic control, geometric delay, any incidents, or as a result other vehicles). LOS F at signalized intersections is often considered unacceptable to most drivers, but does not automatically imply that the intersection is over capacity. Jammed conditions could occur on one or all approaches, with periods of long delays and drivers waiting for multiple signal cycles to progress through the intersection. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 33 For unsignalized intersections, a level of service and estimate of average control delay is determined for each minor or controlled movement based upon a sequential analysis of gaps in the major traffic streams and conflicting traffic movements. In addition, given that unsignalized intersections create different driver expectations and congestion levels than signalized intersections, their delay criteria are lower. Control delay at unsignalized intersections include deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay in waiting for an adequate gap in flows through the intersection, and final acceleration delay. Intersection levels of service were calculated using the methodology and procedures outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board (TRB), using the Synchro6 and HCS 2000 software programs. Table 1: Level of Service Criteria at Intersections Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Delay Range (sec) Delay Range (sec) A 10 5 10 B >10to520 >10to<_15 C >20to<_35 >15to<_25 D >35to<_55 >25to<_35 E >55to<_80 >35to<_50 F 80 50 Source: "Highway Capacity Manual", Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 2000, Update. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 34 121rh A'rr SE. SE 312th St 12401 Ave. St+SB 31401 S=. 12411 Awa SME 314111 St 124th A-.r. SUSE 318th St ,1 * l# 4 , t'.9':~:'A:.~ I F F 124th Aae SETSL• =201h SL 132nd Aw SEISE M4h SL 1221ld Me SEISE 220di Si GRCC'Nest RICK 320ih 5t ~_l 4 4 f 9 X4" .16 -6 6MCA' woz =rrcmc-".it. ;9.110• w, L.ea Hill Rd SF, + 1951h F1 SF _ b. ~ r V+ Lt,t Hill kd SE I 144ji Rvtr SE r-~-1 Scy391,k~_ _ r ~ yr--• nl t F jai,. 7 I • ....i ! stYl1A'.Y~ 1 I S' 7 ~ I C- r r Trades r Reulacement 1, I1~ r - d!.•;~+,E = 15,1.4.1E &mplcx ® - _ Lk.'-bb RY. Legend w' T:affic5lrral .i Stop Sign ('401 !e Scsle) Figure 2 GRCC Trades Tranp rratian Replacement: Complex Engineering Existing Channelizdtion NarlhWesi, LLC and Traffic Control A11bum, VIA IaTcboom hi d;: Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 35 124th Ave SENSE 3121h 5t 124th Ave SEISE 314th St 124th Ave SEISE 316th St 124th Ave 5E/SE 318th St 46 1) (85) (177) (64).x= F 87 5177) (3) (510) Q (70) (357) (6 1)1, 62 (32) (314) (53) 47 (31) 92 319 43 s ( 2 908 34 843 23 e -00) 833 16 ti 32 (2 1) - 471 SE 312th Sf (241) 2 f3) 4 gc3t-ft St Lea Ht➢ Rd SE S_ 310) St SE 31W St 1 G=CC ades 1 (122)97--4 t - ? (56) 59 (200) 129 73 150 133 (1) 5 (54) (161) (246) (1)3--X 1 356 (1) 2-i• 4 236 1 200 10 (95) 120- (2) (4418 !8) 11 (7)4-1 (8) (332) (1) f380j {36} 124th Ave SENSE 320th St 132ndAve SE/SE 304th St 122nd Ave SE/SE 320th St GRCC West EAUSE 320th St w R-48 (188) 295 (411) e 1 (t) (232) (11a (135) (360) 3 (I) (0) (1)~ 386 49y' 12 (61 j 1 12 371 ' - 504 (368} 1 0 1 E- 397 (292) +e- 398 (293) l• ~J " o (o) GRCC Man Emwea i SE 30411h st SE 32, h :t SE 3Y0.'h S Lea tid7 Rd SE r3 SE 320th a (228) 162-4 (114)62-~ (2)2-! t (36) 139--o- (348) 203 (262) 294 8 '0 0 1 f 129) 246 29 SS 11 (0)0-1 c (0) (0) (1) (6$J (135) GRCC West EnrrancelSE 320th St • Lea HIII Rd SE / 105th PI SE i- 96 (!89) (439) ( 5 ) z --7(2) yr- 201 (273) yt- SE 3201h JP 331 (133) I - Pi se (95) 246-3 3t3 261 (78) 281 -y (651) (315) - _ to Lea Hill Rd SE ! 104th Ave SE se xeeu st . 45 (26) W 0) (37T) 20-- -4-- 644 (608) 229 0 2 f v i Y jr Lea0r'dIRd SC 1_.._... A (272) 177'-~ z u...i st`3atu s: 1, t~ L (887) 625 2 1 r r t _ IS¢ 3op -s6 (4) 2 0 (1) (0) Trades < ..L - Re laCement Lea H0 Rd st 31 s, tsms rrE _r Complex l 5 r E5k .SE 100 S .i Jf 4 ( I WNW St f Cam us Legend xx A.M. Peak Hour Volumes < f fi7N k'SEg (xx) Pht. Peak Hour Volumes (Nat to Scale) Figure 13 3 GRCC Trades Transportation Replacement Complex Engineering Existing Peak Hour Northwest, LLC Traffic Volumes Auburn, WA Traffic Impact Study Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 36 Existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service at study intersections are summarized in Table 2. Intersection #1 - 124th Avenue SE / SE 312`h Street currently operates at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour and LOS D during the p.m. peak hour. Eastbound movements at Intersection #2 - 124`h Avenue SE / SE 314th Street currently operate at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour and LOS C during the p.m. peak hour. Eastbound movements at Intersection #3 - 124`h Avenue SE / SE 316`h Street currently operate at LOS F during the a.m. peak hour and LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. The City of Auburn has adopted LOS D as its minimum standard. Table 2: Existing Intersection Levels of Service A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Control Level of Averag Level of Averag Signalized Intersections Type Service a Dela Service a Delay #1 - 124 Ave SE / SE 312` St Signalize E 60 D 36 d #5 - 124`h Ave SE / SE 3201St / GRCC Signalize C 34 B 17 Main Entrance d #6 - 132°d Ave SE / SE 304`h St Signalize B 15 B 12 d #10 - 105` Pl SE / Lea Hill Rd SE Signalize A 9 B 16 d #11 - 104 Ave SE / Lea Hill Rd SE Signalize B 12 B 18 d Control Level of Averag Level of Averag Unsi nalized Intersections T e Service a Delay Service a Delay #2 - 124` Ave SE / SE 314 St EB E 45 C 17 NB Let B 13 A 9 #3 - 124`h Ave SE / SE 316th St EB F >I00 E 44 WB B 12 B 13 NB Let B 13 A 9 SBLet A 8 A 8 #4 - 124` Ave SE / SE 318 St WB C 19 C 16 SBLet A 8 A 9 #7 - 122° Ave SE / SE 3201St EB Let A 8 A 8 WBLet A 8 A 8 NB B 10 A 10 SB B 14 B 12 #8 - GRCC West Exit / SE 3201St NB B 12 B 11 #9 - GRCC West Entrance / SE 320`h St WB Left B 11 A 8 Note: Analysis based on Synchro 6 and HCS 2000 using HCM 2000 control delays (seconds) and LOS. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 37 All other signalized intersections and stop-controlled turning movements at unsignalized intersections operate at LOS C or better under existing conditions during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. Detailed level of service summary worksheets are provided in Appendix G. Roadway Level of Service The City of Auburn uses a corridor level-of-service for its primary measurement of transportation system impacts. The City defines unsatisfactory LOS as: an unacceptable increase in hazard or decrease in safety on a roadway; an accelerated deterioration of the street pavement condition or the proposed use of a street not designated as a truck route for truck movements; an unacceptable impact on geometric design conditions at an intersection where two truck routes meet on the City arterial and collector' network; an increase in congestion which constitutes an unacceptable adverse environmental impact under the State Environmental Policy Act; or the inability of a facility to meet the adopted LOS standard. As identified in the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Table 2-2, 124th Avenue SE from SE 282°d Street to SE 320th Street (includes the westbound approach on SE 312th Street) and SE 320th Street from Lea Hill Road to 124th Avenue SE have an adopted LOS standard of LOS D. A corridor LOS analysis was conducted on 124th Avenue SE between SE 312th Street and SE 320th Street and on SE 320th Street from the GRCC West Entrance to 124th Avenue SE using the Synchro6 software program. As shown in Table 3, both roadway sections currently operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Table 3: Existing Roadway Level of Service A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Trave Travel Trave Trave I Speed 1 1 Section Direction Time (mph) LO Time Speed LO Roadway (sec) S (sec) (mph) S WB Approach on NB 65 26.9 B 67 25.8 B 124th Ave SE' SE 312th St to WB/SB' 190 19.6 C 157 23.5 C SE 320th St SE 320th St GRCC West Ent. EB 55 18.1 C 49 21.7 C to L_ 1 124th Ave SE WB 33 29.9 B 34 28.9 B Note: Analysis based on Synchro 6, Traffic Signal Coordination Software using HCM 2000 control delays (seconds) and LOS. 1 - Assumes a distance of 0.48 miles northbound and 1.03/1.04 miles westbound/southbound on 124th Avenue SE. 2 - Assumes a distance of 0.27 miles on SE 3201h Street. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 38 Collision History The frequency and severity of collisions are commonly weighted against the speed, volume, and functional classification of a roadway segment or intersection. These variables are considered in determining if a certain location has an unusually high collision rate or unsafe condition. The average annual collision rate is calculated by summing the total number of collisions that occurred at a specified intersection or roadway segment during the past three years, and dividing the total by three. At intersections, collision rates are also measured per million entering vehicles (mev), which reflects the number of vehicles traveling through an intersection, providing a different indication of design-related versus volume-related incidences. In general, intersections with less than 5 collisions per year or a collision rate less than 2.0 mev are not considered high collision locations. Historical collision data was provided by the City of Auburn for the most recent 3-year period between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2009. There were no reported collisions at Intersection #2 - 124`" Avenue SE / SE 314`h Street, #7 - 122nd Avenue SE / SE 3201h Street, #8 - GRCC West Exit / SE 320th Street, and #9 - GRCC West Entrance / SE 320`h Street. As shown in Table 4, all intersections experienced an average annual collision rate less than 5.00 per year and a collision rate less than 1.00 per mev. Based upon a review of historical collision records, there are no significant safety issues at off-site and site access study intersections. Table 4: Historical Collision Rates (Most Recent 3-year Period) Average Collisio Total Annual n Rate Intersections Fatalities Injuries PDO Collisions Collision Rate per i MEV' #1 - 124`' Ave SE / SE 312`' St 0 2 3 5 1.00 0.13 #3 - 124 Ave SE / SE 316` St 0 1 0 1 0.00 0.00 #4 - 124`" Ave SE / SE 318 St 0 0 1 1 0.33 0.08 #5 - 124 Ave SE / SE 320`' St / 0 3 2 5 0.67 0.17 GRCC Main Entrance #6 - 132" Ave SE / SE 304` St 0 3 14 17 4.67 0.74 #10 - 105 PI SE / Lea Hill Rd 0 1 7 8 2.33 0.39 SE #11 - 104` Ave SE / Lea Hill Rd 0 2 5 7 1.67 0.21 SE 1 - City of Auburn Corridor Report, shy 3-year period between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2009, Data Collected June 2010. 2 - MEV - Million entering vehicles. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 39 Public Transportation Services King County-Metro transit routes 164 and 181 provide public transportation services at the GRCC Campus and on neighboring streets in the project site vicinity. Transit stops are located on 124th Avenue NE at its intersection with SE 316th Street and adjacent to the main GRCC Campus on the south side of SE 320th Street. King Country-Metro offers dial-a-ride, rideshare, and ridematch services. Accessible transit services are also offered to citizens with disabilities. Bicycle racks are provided on the front of most King County-Metro buses. A set number of King-County Metro bus passes are available to students at a reduced rate the first day of each quarter. The GRCC Transportation Department also provides financial incentives for carpooling and offers reserved parking for carpool vehicles on-campus. Route 164 provides weekday service from Kent to the GRCC Campus. Service arrives at the Campus from 5:40 a.m. until 9:40 p.m. and departs from the Campus between 6:15 a.m. to 10:15 p.m. every hour. King County-Metro plans to increase the frequency of this service by 2011 to every 30 minutes along the 124th Avenue SE corridor. Route 181 offers daily service generally every half hour to one hour to the GRCC Campus, Auburn (including the Sound Transit Commuter Rail Station), and Federal Way. Weekday service arrives at the campus from 6:15 a.m. to 11:45 p.m. and departs from the campus between 5:40 a.m. to 10:10 p.m. Saturday service departs the campus from 7:15 a.m. until 10:15 p.m. and arriving on-campus between 8:00 a.m. and midnight. Sunday service departs the campus between 8:10 a.m. until 8:10 p.m. and arriving on-campus from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 P.M. Nonmotorized Transportation Facilities Raised sidewalks are located on all property frontages of the existing GRCC Campus, i.e., on the east side of 124th Avenue SE (fronting student housing) and on the south side of SE 320th Street. Paved shoulders approximately 4 to 6 feet wide and portions of raised sidewalk are provided on 124th Avenue SE. Bicycle lanes are also provided on 124th Avenue SE in the vicinity of SE 312th Street. On the north side of SE 320th Street, 3-foot paved shoulders and 6-foot gravel shoulders are provided. Painted crosswalks with signage are also provided on SE 320th Street on the east side of its intersections with 122nd Avenue SE and at 124th Avenue SE. Planned Roadway Improvements A review of planned transportation improvements in the City of Auburn's 2010-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) was conducted. The City of Auburn's 6-year TIP identified the following transportation improvement projects that are in the vicinity to the proposed development: ■ TIP #39 - 124th Avenue SE Corridor Improvements Phase 1. Provide improvements at the signalized intersection of SE 320th Street and 124th Avenue SE. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 40 Construct bicycle lanes, sidewalks, dual southbound left-turn lanes into Green River Community College, and provide ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems). The project is anticipated for construction by the year 2015 with a project cost estimate of $850,000. ■ TIP #40 - 124th Avenue SE Corridor Improvements Phase 2. Construct a 4-lane section with bicycle and pedestrian facilities between SE 318th Street and SE 312th Street. The project is anticipated for construction by the year 2015 with a project cost estimate of $1,520,000. ■ TIP #41 - 124th Avenue SE Corridor Improvements Phase 3. Provide improvements at the signalized intersection of SE 312th Street and 124th Avenue SE. Provide ITS and construct bicycle lanes, pedestrian safety improvements, dual westbound left-turn lanes and two southbound through lanes. The project is anticipated for construction by the year 2015 with a project cost estimate of $500,000. ■ TIP #42 - SE 320th Street Corridor Improvements. Construct a 3-lane roadway with bicycle and pedestrian facilities on SE 320th Street between 124th Avenue SE and the western entrance to Green River Community College. The project is anticipated for construction by the year 2015 with a project cost estimate of $640,000. The funding for these projects is unknown at this time, and they were not assumed to be completed by 2015 for traffic analysis purposes. The effects of these improvements are noted in the report however, as these are improvements identified by the City of Auburn to meet their Comprehensive Plan level of standards recently adopted within the study area to achieve transportation concurrency within the next 6 years as required by GMA. These improvements were planned and identified to address existing needs based upon level of service standards established by the City of Auburn. Additional Planned Roadway Improvements As part of overall GRCC Campus improvements, GRCC is currently in the process of constructing a combination of site access improvements, frontage improvements and a portion of the City's arterial system improvement along 124th Avenue SE. Construction of these improvements by GRCC should be completed by the end of year 2010 - therefore, these improvements were assumed to be constructed under 2015 baseline conditions without the proposed project: ■ Construction of a two-way, center left-turn lane from between SE 318th Street and SE 316th Street. ■ Construction of two southbound lanes from approximately 430 feet south of SE 316th Street to SE 320th Street. ■ Construction a 10-foot sidewalk and 6-foot bicycle lane on the west side of the street between SE 316th Street and SE 320th Street. ■ Construction of a 6-foot bicycle lane between SE 318th Street and SE 320th Street, 4- to 8-foot shoulders between SE 316th Street and SE 318th Street on the east side of the Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 41 street, and extension of the existing sidewalk from the northern edge of Student Housing to SE 318`h Street. Impact Analysis The following section describes transportation impacts of the Trades Replacement Complex on the surrounding arterial network and study intersections in the site vicinity. The discussion includes non-project related traffic forecasts, new trips generated by the proposed development, distribution and assignment of new project trips, impacts on roadways, levels of service at nearby significant intersections, site access, circulation, and safety issues, parking, public transportation services, nonmotorized facilities, and transportation impact fees. Non-Project Traffic Forecasts This analysis is for the Trades Replacement Complex only, and the horizon year for the traffic study is 2015. This reflects funding commitments of the State and the expected timing of construction. Given this buildout year, existing traffic volumes representing through traffic in the campus vicinity were factored by 1 percent per year to account for general traffic growth in the vicinity based on historical traffic counts. Historical trip generation of GRCC campus traffic indicates a near zero to negative 1 percent per year growth rate since 2003. The main campus has been "at capacity" for peak parking utilization during morning hours for a number of years, and as such, existing traffic volumes related to campus access were not factored to establish 2015 baseline conditions. Trip Generation . As summarized in the Science Center Building Green River Community College Transportation Impact Study, October 29, 2004, gross building areas at the campus was chosen as the most accurate method of estimating trip generation. Additional campus-wide trip generation surveys were taken again in October 2010, as part of master planning efforts for the GRCC main campus, and in April 2011. Table 5 identifies the, a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation rates for these three periods indexed to campus gross building area. Although overall trip generation of the campus has increased between 2003 and 2010, the campus-wide trip generation rate has decreased slightly over this period as building floor area has increased. The April 2011 data shows slightly lower trip generation rate compared to those taken in Fall quarter of 2010 although gross building area has remained constant. This reflects the relative nature of student loads that fluctuate throughout the year, and typically peak in the Fall quarter. Trip generation rates include student and other vehicle trips generated by the existing gravel parking area on the corner of 122nd Ave. SE and SE 320`h Street, adjacent to the Lea Hill Park. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 42 Table 5: Historical Trip Generation Rates at GRCC Indexed to Gross Building Areas Survey One-Way Gross Campus Trips per Time Period Period Vehicle Square 1,000 sf Trips Footage (GFLA) AM Peak Hour - Fall Quarter October 2003 1,514 583,882 2.59 PM Peak Hour - Fall Quarter October 2003 775 583,882 1.33 AM Peak Hour - Fall Quarter October 2010 1,589 637,627 2.49 PM Peak Hour - Fall Quarter October 2010 816 637,627 1.28 AM Peak Hour - Spring Quarter Aril 2011 1,347 637,627 2.11 PM Peak Hour- Spring Quarter A ri12011 796 637,627 1.25 Source: Observed vehicle trip generation rates of GRCC, October 2003 and October 2010, as documented in the GRCC 2010 Campus Parking and Utilization Study, TENW, December 22, 2010, and additional Trip Generation Study - April 2011. Although the program and student ratios within the Trades program are significantly lower than the overall campus, the trip rates of the existing overall campus were used to estimate existing traffic generated by the existing Trades buildings on the GRCC campus as required by the City of Auburn. By comparison, the average student ratio per 1,000 square-feet (sf) of gross floor area is approximately 19.3 students/1,000 sf at the existing SMT building, while the existing Trades complex averages only 2.8 students/1,000 sf, 15 percent of a typical .classroom building. As such, these figures are considered very conservative. As these campus-wide trip generation rates are reflective of actual site trip generation, trip rates associated with the Fall 2010 surveys were utilized to estimate increased trip generation potential of new classroom space available within the Trades Replacement Complex. The total trip generation of the Trades Replacement Complex is estimated as 162 a.m. peak hour and 83 p.m. peak hour trips (as shown in Table 6) using 2010 campus-wide trip generation rates. Table 6: Estimated Total Trip Generation of the Trades Replacement Complex AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Building Size Trip Generation Trip Generation Proposed Use Square Feet Enter Exit Trips Enter Exit Trips Trades Replacement Complex 65,000 137 25 162 37 46 83 Source: Observed vehicle trip generation rates of GRCC, October 2010 and TENW. Diversion of existing traffic from the main GRCC campus to the proposed Trades Replacement Complex, and adjustments to reflect existing Trades trips, are documented in the Diverted Trips Associated with Existing Trades Program section of this report. Diverted trips of existing traffic will occur as a portion of existing students would shift to new parking facilities at the Trades Replacement Complex that would be dedicated to the Trades program. Some existing traffic generated by the existing Trades program would continue to park on the main GRCC campus given other class loads and general school activities within the main campus. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 43 Trip Distribution and Assignment Using standard engineering practices and guidelines, new vehicle trips generated by the proposed GRCC expansion were distributed and assigned to the surrounding street system based on existing traffic volumes along SE 320th Street, 124th Avenue SE, local traffic patterns, and location of area services. Project trip distribution and project trip assignment was assumed to follow these basic patterns from the project site based upon existing observations (Source: GRCC Campus Utilization Study, February 19, 2004): 40 percent to the west via SE 320th Street and 60 percent to the north via 124th Avenue SE. Beyond the project site, 45 percent would travel north via 112th Avenue SE; 124th Avenue SE, and SR 18; and 15 percent would travel south and west via SR 18. Project trip distribution is illustrated in Figure 14 Peak hour project trip assignment at the Trades Replacement Complex Site Driveway intersection onto 124th Avenue SE is shown in Figure 15. No project trips were assigned to the restricted secondary emergency access only driveway onto 122nd Avenue SE. Diverted Trips Associated with Existing Trades Program With the development of the Trades Replacement Complex, a total of 159 parking stalls would be provided with primary vehicular access via 124th Avenue SE, opposite SE 318th Street. Of this total supply, approximately 92 stalls would be available for staff/Trade students while the remaining are for the Trades Program itself (i.e., Automotive and Auto Body bull pen for customer and program cars, and the Trades fleet). Therefore, existing student/staff trips associated with the Trades relocation would be redistributed from the main Campus to the 124th Avenue SE / SE 318th Street intersection. Table 7 summarizes trip generation and trip redistribution for the existing 42,574 square foot Trades Replacement Complex. As discussed previously in the trip generation section, total trip generation for the Trades Replacement Complex was based upon the total square footage of 65,000 square feet for existing and new uses. Of the total trip generation estimates, it was determined that 77 percent would be existing trips and 23 percent would be new trips based on existing and proposed student capacity within the Trades program as noted in the footnotes of Table 7. Based on College student class data, it was determined that roughly 50 percent of all existing trips would be redistributed for student/staff parking at the Trades Replacement Complex as not all of this existing demand within the Trades Program attend GRCC for Trades-only (i.e., students and staff have other classes/responsibilities within the main campus). Thus, a total of 62 a.m. peak hour trips and 32 p.m. peak hour trips were redistributed for relocation of the Trades Replacement Complex. Figure 16 shows redistributed trips at specific intersections associated with the proposed Trades relocation. An existing gravel parking lot on the site that is accessed via 122nd Avenue SE would be paved as part of the project. This parking would remain as open public parking which is Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 44 generally used as visitor parking by the GRCC during school hours. As assigned parking for the Trades program will be managed within the new complex, no changes in function, demand, or utilization of this existing parking facility would occur, and as such, no redistribution of existing traffic levels to/from this facility were made in the traffic analysis. Table 7: Existing Trades Replacement Com lex Trips & Redistributed Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Trip Generation Index Population Type Percent' Enter Exit Trips Enter Exit Trips Existing Trades Bldg 77% 105 19 124 57 35 63 Redistributed Existing Trades Bldg 50% 53 9 62 24 18 32 Source: Observed vehicle trip generation rates of GRCC, October 2003. 1 - Existing student capacity of the Trades Program at any one time is 120 students. With the Trades Replacement Complex, this student capacity increases to 156 students at any one time. As such, existing trips are estimated at 77 percent of total trip generation Fifty-percent of all existing trips would be redistributed based on GRCC student data. Intersection Level of Service Impacts Figures 17 and 18 summarize a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes with and without the proposed Trades Replacement Complex development. Intersection levels of service impacts during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour were evaluated at study intersections assuming full completion and occupancy of the Trades Replacement Complex in 2015 and are summarized in Tables 8 and 9. The analysis assumes that all signalized intersections have optimized signal cycle lengths/splits/offsets. Detailed level of service summary worksheets and traffic volume calculations worksheets are provided in Appendix G. The signalized Intersection #1 - 124th Avenue SE / SE 312th Street would operate at LOS E with or without the project during the a.m. peak hour in 2015. Eastbound movements at the unsignalized intersection of Intersection #2 - 124`h Avenue SE / SE 314`h Street would operate at LOS F during the a.m. peak hour with or without the project in 2015, and at the unsignalized intersection of Intersection #3 - 124th Avenue SE / SE 316th Street would operate at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour with or without the project in 2015. All other study intersections would operate at LOS D or better with and without the project in 2015 during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour, and would meet adopted level of service standards. As shown in Tables 8 and 9, only slight incremental increases in overall intersection delay would result at study intersections due to the proposed Trades Replacement Complex. As such, no significant impacts would occur as a result of the project. As noted previously, transportation improvements are planned and programmed (although currently unfunded) alon~ 124th Avenue SE and at its intersections with SE 312th Street, SE 314th Street, and SE 316` Street by the City of Auburn prior to 2015; these are needed with or without the project to meet the City's adopted City LOS standards. With these planned Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 45 improvements the intersections that do not meet currently adopted level of service standards would improve to LOS D or better, and result in a concurrent transportation system as required by GMA. As the Trades Complex would not be occupied until 2015, concurrency would need to be satisfied by 2021, or 6 years from occupancy of the Trades Replacement Complex. As requested by the City of Auburn, discreet intersection improvements at Intersection #1 - 124th Avenue SE / SE 312th Street, Intersection #2 - 124th Avenue SE / SE 314th Street, and Intersection #3 - 124th Avenue SE / SE 316th Street were evaluated to determine if planned City improvements or other measures could be implemented to achieve adopted LOS standards. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 46 18 r > SE 289th is[ I I UJ > Z ~ > 4 !I v vJf/ ~ Qf y F............. N t y' 4 t SE 304th St ' I } CO S> '308i t E 1 T a Trades L Replacement Lea N#il Rd SE f F I Sth StW Complex SE 311 §E! (6th , S St I R Loa FMain St Main f a--- GRCC r"IackW, 8Iac tand•R&- Lake Holm Rd Ln 1 164 a th St SE (Not to Scale) GRCC Trades 9-0 Transportation Figure 14 Replacement Complex Engineering Northwest, LLC Project Trip Distribution auburn, WA 7nffk Impact Study Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 47 124th Ave SENSE 312th St 124th Ave SENSE 314th St 1241h Ave SENSE 316th St 124th Ave SEISE 318th Sc m (6 (6) s 13 (4) ( 165 1 ~6) c ~ 1 N SE 312th St S.F.*S S La.7,WrRd SE SEitamSr SE3164& t GRt:C 'Lde:a~ 4 (7) 4 1 2 4 13 (2) (4) (7) (7) (4) 2 f4 ) 124th Ave SEISE 320th St 132ndAve SENSE 304th St 122nd Ave SEISE 320th St GRCC West EAUSE 320th St ewil y h ~(2) Q g -0--13 (4) .e- 2 (4)~-- 2 (4) 91 GRCC Mam Enreantc t~ SE J011;r1 St SE MV Si SE 320th St Lea Hdi Rd SE ea SE 32tXn 7 G eau (4) 13 --0 {4) 2 -s (4) 13 (4) 13 --s U s C S 4'V LU • GRCC West Entrance/SE 320th St Lea Hill Rd SE / IOSth PI SE w E-- 2 (4)- 2 (4) R SE 32" S: foam a SE (4) 13--r 13 . (4) i 1......a .__.--...f to Leo H11E Rd SE % 104th Ave SE { -1_- _ SE 2e9n 15~1m d i M 2(4) r' s E a ~i ` C t -I a < < " sj ( l N eeaar."rhRdSE $ (4) 13-s Trades 3 ` a Hp! lia SE 312N 51 4 ` F -f Replacement t . 15th St NIE Complex 1E3t6m in SE!3200 St yt~ Se... Main 77 GRCC j N ` Cam us iwm at,ce a4,,,,w,e Ra v L,ke Hdm Rd _ i Legend 164, j -*-A.M. Peak Hour t, XX --o-P.M. Peak Hour Volumeses 147.03 ,St (Nai to Sate) GRCC Trades Transportation Figure 15 Replacement Complex Engineering Peak Hour Project Generated NorthWest, LLC Traffic Volume Trip Assignment Auburn, WA Traffic Impact Study Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 48 I ; 18 i" ®Q SE 288th iSt w h ~E e to y > z C~ >1 ¢ a a dj r ' d b' t Ln c 04 SE 1304th St Q I E 508th-St Trades R_ a Replacement Lea Hill Rd SE SE 312th St f I su, st Complex SE 31~th St St 124ds Ave SE/5E 318th St a~A _ISE 3161h { 0 k E3 f eth St ' --~8 St I SE1320t St (32) (-12) ~ Sr' 32~tt ~t N J. i t ~ / W.R~ /v~JCS 111) 5 19 S E? In St Main G RCC f (6) 4-y (5) 00) Campus N 124th Ave SENSE 320th Sc "~At♦E't+ ,Black.Di ~..5 t•10) ndAd i (6) 04) 4 F .31.6) ~r. 4 -28 ~ 164 Q SE 3X»n S; th St SE i (s) 19-~v Legend _ cur -*-A.M. Peak Hour Volumes (xx) P.M. Peak Hour Volumes (tJot to Seale) GRCC Trades Transportation Figure 16 Replacement Complex Engineering Existing Trades Complex Northwest, LLC Redistributed Peak Hour Volumes Auburn, WA Tnfk Impact Study Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 49 124th Ave SENSE 312th St 124th Ave SEISE 314th St 124Th Ave SENSE 316th St 124th Ave SENSE 318th St H 49 (49) 66(66) W 'k- 5o (50} (98) (345) (464 ~ 199 (199) (2) (983) q (36) (914) (24),!~' (51) (853) (17).3i 98 339 46;&Z 2 964 t 3E6 895 24 $ F 0(0) j0 885 17 H F 0 (0) I~ 500 (513) It 2 (2) 34 (34) SE312M$I 5631 tJS~ LeaH&RdSE 3145 s"31Uh5t ?I `KIC ;,FA= ) 0 t (103) 103 t 1 (5) 5 (63)b3 t (137) 137 77} 60) (14 1 (3)3--A 1 378 (2)2 -s 4 251 I (0)0--.)- 0 212 11 (127) 127- ( (1) (382) 11 (4)4~ (4) (255) (1) (6)0-x (32) (207) (11) 124th Ave SE/SE 320th St I32ndAve SEISE 304th St 122nd Ave SEISE 320th St GRCC West Exit/SE 320th 5t R- 48 (43) m R- 313 (313) 1 (1) (416) (465) 12 (9) (1 19) (394) 535 (548) {1} p) (1) g -4-- 421 (423) -4- 422 (424) 410 493 GRCC Moon Eivanta SE 30434 SS ~F r p {@} SE 32W, Si SE.i20tn St Lea Hdt R7 SE SE t2r3h (104) 172 (66) 66 (2} 2 { 120) 139 (217) 215 -i (330) 317 ->r (274) 261-0- ~9 55 (0)0-- (0) (0) (1) s (29) (55) I A 1. IL • GRCC West Entrance/SE 3201h St t Lea Hill Rd SE / 105th Pl SE H . 102((04) (466) (S) 7 (7) 466 5 213 (215) Pr- pe- 331 (331) SE nOth Sr iC:x» Gr1y5/E (274) 261 396 277. (281) 281-~~ o- (396) (290) u Lea Hill Rd SE / 104th Ave SE < h 48 (48) 2 (0 -t } 21 684 (6 NI s y . M (2 j 3 (2 1) 2 {2} Lea HF,11 Rd S--- c ~ w. r - E - - p~088) 188 SEpi7Nh Ss 1 (676)663 --J~ 2 1 ! 1 ! h ~tadsi (2) 2 {2) (IJ (17 ~-...i Replacement tLo Hin SE Ilim St Ism SIaVE - - Complex 0 y E 1 SE1320CI S~ QN S< • ye ~F St l~r... t t' J r EWmst +s-~ Mjl GC 0 s 1 1, Cam y.. s r _ ; ^ ^~`""&"ko~a+ln s'' t.uYHamxd Le end g xx A.M. Peak Hour Volumes without Project V,ilzu,.1't' 4t (xx) A.M. Peak Hour Volumes with Project (Not to Scale) Transportation Figure 17 GRCC Trades Replacement Complex ;t~A ff- Engineering 2015 A.M. Peak Hour N orth est, uC Traffic Volume Impacts Auburn WA Traffic Impact Study Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 50 124th Ave SENSE 312th SE 1241h Ave SEISE 314th St 124th Ave SEISE 316th St 124th Ave SE/SE 318th St 54 (54) R- 34(34) 33 (33) (90) (190) (68)4 (3) (547) (74) (385) (65), F 3 (3) (20) (319) (57)3 E - 0 (0) 90 188 684 188 (188) 3 541 74 379 65 = 0 333 57 256 (260) I ) I~ 3 (3) 22 (22) IE SE3r2th$1 SE3?)-~!hS! Lea FirN Rd Sc SE 3146h SE370h SR G'?CCc ira'L Dr (130) 130 t (1).l t (59) 59-4 (17)0-~ t (212) 212 57) (171 (26 1 (ly I 2 444 (1) 1 ~ 8 352 1 (0)0---)- 0 404 38 (101) 101 ( --Ii (2) (451) (7) 7 (8) (359) (1) (10) 0 -'Ik (6) (394) (38) 124th Ave USE 320th St 132ndAve SEISE 304th St 122nd Ave SE/SE 320th S~ GRCC West Exit/SE 320th St w 188 (178)w' 436 (436) I (1) (256) (97) 61 (55) (143 (382) E' 391 (395) (1) (0) (I) F 310 (314) 4 311 (3151 246 111 o (o) GRCC Adam Entrance SE 3rNtlt S1 SE 72~'.^. c/ Se 32ft St Lee Nxt Rd SE (2) 2 4 SE 3Y"h S. (251) 242 -.7f (121) 121 w (31) 36-s (373) 3464 -Y (282) 278 S (14 137 68 135 - (0) 0 --4k (0) (0) (1) (68) (135) GRCC West Entrance/SE 320th St • Lea Hill Rd SE / 105th Pt SE t-- 201 (105) (417 ) (6) s 2 (2) 290 (294) SE MOM St 133 (133) rust s rs (105) 101-; 6~1 334 (78) 78 -yt (691) (338) , - , lea Hill Rd SE / 104th Ave SE ys\ SE 288~u,sc._.... ray- . vmi R" 28 (28) - )T F 645 W. W 400 0 55 (0)(649) 0 r >l < i _..ti.._ c°' t xa (289) 28.~ s (9446) 942 a 0 7 0. (,0) (I) (0) j R1 ~epd 5 (4) 4 --A Trades Re lacement te, rtm Ra sE _ 7t2m sc 9 t sm sr NE Complex 14 ? Main r.....,. GRCC r Cam us . _ n6urn84ckD.a mao 6 Legend xx -s m P. M. Peak Hour Volues without Project l (xx) P.M. Peak Hour Volumes with Project (Not to scale) GRCC Trades Figure l 8 Replacement Complex J Transportation Engineering 2015 P.M. Peak Hour Auburn, WA NorthWest, Lt.C Traffic Volume Impacts Traffic Impact Stutly Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 51 Table 8: 2015 A.M. Peak Intersection Level of Service Impacts Control Without Project With Project Signalized Intersections Type LOS Delay LOS Delay #1 - 124` Ave SE / SE 312` St Signalized E 67 E 68 #5 - 124th Ave SE / SE 320`h St / GRCC Signalized D 48 D 40 Main Entrance #6 - 132° Ave SE / SE 304'hSt Signalized B 17 B 17 #10 - 105 Pl SE / Lea Hill Rd SE Signalized B 11 B #11 - 104 Ave SE / Lea Hill Rd SE Signalized B 13 B +--IL4' Control Without Project With Project' Unsignalized Intersections Type LOS Delay LOS Delay #2 - 124` Ave SE / SE 314` St EB F 56 F 60 NB Left B 13 B 14 #3 - 124`h Ave SE / SE 316th St . EB F >100 F >100 WB B 13 B 13 NB Let B 13 B 14 SBLet A 8 A 8 #4 - 1241 Ave SE / SE 318` St EB D 35 WB B 14 B 15 NB Let B 11 SBLet A 8 A 8 #7 - 122° Ave SE / SE 320 St EB Let A 8 A 8 WBLet A 8 A 8 NB B 10 B 10 SB B 14 B 14 #8 - GRCC West Exit / SE 320`h St NB B 12 B 12 #9 - GRCC West Entrance / SE 320th St WB Left B 11 B 11 Note: Analysis based on Synchro 6 and HCS 2000 software programs, using HCM 2000 control delays (seconds) and LOS. The following summarizes intersection improvements at the three study intersections that currently do not meet adopted level of service standards. These intersections would not meet adopted level of service standards in 2015 with or without the project. These improvements include projects from the City's existing 2010-2015 TIP, as well as alternatives to those identified in the City's TIP that are provided for purposes of discussion: Intersection #1 - 124th Avenue SE / SE 312th Street - City TIP project #41 and a portion of #40: This signalized intersection currently experiences left turn demand on the westbound approach that exceeds its available capacity. In order for the intersection to meet adopted LOS standards, a second westbound left turn lane is needed to provide adequate capacity. An additional southbound receiving lane on 124th Avenue SE would also be needed south of SE 312th Street for this improvement to be effective. With this improvement the intersection is forecast to operate at LOS C or better with or without the project in 2015. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 52 Intersection 42 - 124th Avenue SE / SE 314th Street: This is an alternative to the City's TIP projects. Delays for eastbound left turning movements from SE 314th Street onto 124th Avenue SE trigger the level of service deficiency. Demand for these movements however, represents only 0.3 percent of total entering volumes (only 5 vehicles during peak hours), and therefore, significant improvements to address such a low volume appear unwarranted. The City could implement turning movement restrictions at this location, similar to conditions imposed on private development immediately north of this intersection, modify. the methodology for unsignalized level of service to include both stop and yield controlled movements in the delay calculation, or modify the LOS standard for this intersection or corridor. Implementation of turning movement restriction (i.e., right turn only) would improve the level of service of this approach to LOS C or better. Intersection #3 - 124th Avenue SE / SE 316th Street - part of City TIP project #41 and a portion of #40: Delays for eastbound left turning movements from SE 316th Street onto 124th Avenue SE trigger the level of service deficiency at this intersection as well. Demand for these movements is moderate with more than 60 vehicles forecasted by 2015 during the a.m. peak hour. Continuation of the existing roadway section recently constructed by GRCC (i.e., two southbound through lanes, a center turning lane, and a northbound through lane) would improve the existing and forecasted LOS deficiency from LOS F to LOS D. Alternatively, construction of a traffic control signal or roundabout treatment as identified in the City's 2010-2015 TIP would also meet the City's adopted LOS standard. Intersection level of service results for these alternative transportation improvement options are included in Appendix G. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 53 Table 9: 2015 P.M. Peak Intersection Level of Service Impacts Control Without Project With Project' Signalized Intersections Type LOS Delay LOS Delay #1 - 124` Ave SE / SE 312` St Signalized D 38 D 38 #5 - 124` Ave SE / SE 320 St / GRCC Signalized B 18 B 18 Main Entrance #6 - 132° Ave SE / SE 304`h St Signalized B 12 B 12 #10 - 105`h P1 SE / Lea Hill Rd SE Signalized C 20 C 21 #11 - 1047Ave SE / Lea Hill Rd SE Signalized C 22 C 22 Control Without Project With Project' Unsignalized Intersections Type LOS Delay LOS Delay #2 - 124` Ave SE / SE 314` St EB C 18 C 18 NB Let A 9 A 9 #3 - 124th Ave SE / SE 316`h St EB F -,55 F 60 WB B 14 B 14 NB Let A 9 A 9 SBLet A 9 A 9 #4 - 124` Ave SE / SE 318` St EB C 21 WB B 14 B 15 NB Let A 8 SBLet A 9 A 9 #7 - 122°d Ave SE / SE 320`h St EB Let A 8 A 8 WBLet A 8 A 8 NB A 10 A 10 SB B 12 B 12 #8 - GRCC West Exit / SE 3201St NB B 11 B 11 #9 - GRCC West Entrance / SE 3201h St WB Let A 8 A 8 Note: Analysis based on Synchro 6 and HCS 2000 software programs, using HCM 2000 control delays (seconds) and LOS. Roadway Level of Service Impacts Tables 10 and 11 summarize 2015 roadway level of service impacts during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour on 124th Avenue SE between SE 312th Street and SE 320th Street (includes the westbound approach on SE 312th Street as requested by the City) and on SE 320th Street from the GRCC West Entrance to 124th Avenue SE. As shown, both roadways sections would operate at LOS C or better without or with the project during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour in 2015, meeting City adopted standards. Roadway level of service analysis is in Appendix G. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 54 Table 10: 2015 Roadway Level of Service A.M. Peak Hour Impacts Without Project With Project Trave Travel Trave Trave 1 Speed 1 I Section Direction Time (mph) LO Time Speed LO Roadwa (sec) S (sec) (mph) S 124`h Ave SE' WB Approach on NB 66 26.5 B 66 26.6 B SE 312`h St to WB/SB 198 18.9 C 198 18.9 C SE 320th St SE 320` Stz GRCC West Ent. EB 52 19.0 C 52 19.1 C to 1241h Ave SE WB 33 29.9 B 33 29.9 B Note: Analysis based on Synchro 6, Traffic Signal Coordination Software using HCM 2000 control delays (seconds) and LOS. 1 - Assumes a distance of 0.48 miles northbound and 1.03/1.04 miles westbound/southbound on 124`h Avenue SE. 2 - Assumes a distance of 0.27 miles on SE 320'hStreet. Table 11: 2015 Roadway Level of Service P.M. Peak Hour Impacts Without Project With Project Trave Travel Trave Trave 1 Speed 1 I Section Direction Time (mph) LO Time Speed LO Roadwa (sec) S (sec) (mph) S 124` Ave SE' WB Approach NB 66 25.8 B 66 25.8 B on SE 312`h St to WB/SB 158 23.4 C 159 23.4 C SE 320`h St SE 320 St 112`h Ave SE to EB 45 21.7 C 44 21.9 C 124`h Ave SE WB 34 28.9 B 34 28.9 B Note: Analysis based on Synchro 6, Traffic Signal Coordination Software using HCM 2000 control delays (seconds) and LOS. 1 - Assumes a distance of 0.48 miles northbound and 1.03/1.04 miles westbound/southbound on 124`h Avenue SE. 2 - Assumes a distance of 0.27 miles on SE 320th Street. Site Access, Safety, and Circulation Issues A new site access driveway would be provided onto 124th Avenue SE, opposite SE 318`h Street for access to staff and student parking for the relocated Trades Complex/Trades Replacement Building. Site access improvements on 124th Avenue SE as part of the proposed development would include two southbound through lanes and a new northbound left turn only lane. The applicant would be required to fully fund and construct site driveway improvements onto 124th Avenue SE. As noted earlier, the 124th Avenue SE frontage, site access, and widening improvements would mitigate project impacts and satisfy the City frontage improvement requirements. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 55 Frontage improvements will also be required along SE 320th Street. As noted in the City's 2010-2015 TIP, an ultimate 3-lane roadway section is planned along this frontage. Therefore, as part of the Trades Replacement Project, GRCC would construct the northern portion of the SE 320th Street section (i.e., to support the north half of a 3-lane section that includes bike lanes and sidewalk). Parking Impacts A total of 160 off-street parking stalls would be on the Trades Replacement Complex site when completed; 98 stalls would be available for student/staff parking, the existing 22-stall general public parking would remain, and the remaining 40 stalls would be used for the Trades program. Parking Requirements under City Code The City has not adopted a minimum off-street parking requirement for College uses. Currently the off-street parking requirements (per ACC 18.52.020) for colleges and universities is based upon a case-by-case review by the planning director and hearing examiner. As this particular program involves complete relocation of an existing use, parking demand for the facility is fairly straightforward. Ultimately, the new Trades Replacement Complex can support up to 156 students at any one time. The existing program capacity supports 120 students and roughly 50 percent of those are expected to only utilize Trades classes; therefore, demand for parking of approximately 60 existing students and up to 36 new students are expected to be generated at the Trades Replacement Complex. Given known average vehicle occupancies, carpool programs, and other access characteristics at the GRCC campus, demand for approximately 80 stalls for students during peak class loads are estimated. The remainder of the supply would be available for Trades staff parking and Trades programs. Parking Demand Estimates using Site Generated Historical Rates/ITE Rates As found in the GRCC Cam us Utilization Study, February 19, 2004, and identified in the ITE Parking Generation, 3r Edition, the peak parking demand at a college/ university land use typically peaks by 11:00 a.m. on an average weekday per that study. Based upon the existing campus/ITE peak parking demand rate of 0.44 stalls per student per that study, Table 12 summarizes future parking demand of the project, generating an estimated 68 stalls of peak demand. Given that the overall campus parking generation rate was lower than using an "activities-based" demand estimate specific to Trades, this overall campus rate was not utilized". Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 56 Table 12: 2015 Pro posed Action Peak Parkin Demand Estimate Peak d Peak Available Student Parking Parking Deficit/ Percent Parkin Type Load Demand Supply Surplus Utilization Trades Replacement 156 68 98 30 69% Complex GRCC proposes to implement a Parking Management Program for the Trades Replacement Parking. This Program would provide assigned parking within the main parking supply provided in the project (access off of 124th Avenue SE) to staff and students associated with the Program. Assigned parking would be managed and enforced by existing Security and Facility personnel on a daily basis in coordination with other continual parking monitoring that is performed by GRCC staff at the main campus. Student parking priority would be assigned by seniority throughout the course of the day as program hours and demand fluctuates. Public Transportation Impacts Existing King Country-Metro routes serve the GRCC Campus on the south side of SE 320th Street. A transit stop is also located on 124th Avenue SE at its intersection with SE 316th Street. Existing routes serve the south side of SE 320th Street only given the exchange of students between coaches and the buildings on campus. This location provides optimal passenger transfer and provides the safest location for transit riders as they do not have to cross any public street to their destination. Retention of this existing transit stop/layover facility is recommended by King County-Metro. Contact with King County-Metro' regarding long-range transit service and facility improvements identified no specific planned service changes or facilities, besides the frequency increase on Route 164 that terminates at the GRCC campus. While planning for future transit service along the north side of SE 320th Street is prudent, King County-Metro indicates it would not currently serve this location given the heavy exchange of riders between transit and the main campus. While there are no specific plans at this time, the site plan for Trades is designed such that a future transit/layover space could be provided as a nearside location of the 122nd Avenue SE intersection along the north side of SE 320th Street as requested by King County-Metro. A reserve area for this potential future facility has been included in the project site plan and proposed frontage improvements. Nonmotorized Transportation Impacts As part of overall GRCC Campus improvements, GRCC is currently in the process of reconstructing 124th Avenue SE with the addition of a 10-foot sidewalk and 6-foot bicycle lane on the west side of the street between SE 316th Street and SE 320th Street, and a 6-foot I Source: Based on discussions with King County-Metro staff in a meeting with TENW and SM Stemper on July 8, 2010 (Doug Johnson, Service Planning and David Korthals, Transit Facilities). Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 57 bicycle lane between SE 318th Street and SE 320th Street and 4-to 8-foot shoulders between SE 316`h Street and SE 318th Street on the east side of the street. In addition, the College will be extending the existing sidewalk on the east side , of 124th Avenue SE from the Student Housing complex north to SE 318th Street. As part of the project, sidewalks would also be constructed along the site frontage of SE 320th Street and a separate trail system would be provided throughout the entire complex (as shown in Figure 2). To accommodate pedestrian crossings between the proposed Trades Replacement Complex and the main GRCC campus, two existing crosswalk facilities are available; an existing marked crosswalk at 122°d Avenue SE and SE 320th Street and the controlled signalized intersection of 124th Avenue SE and SE 320th Street. GRCC also proposes to construct a mid-block pedestrian crossing on SE 320th Street between 122°d Avenue SE and 124th Avenue SE, which is shown on Figure 19. This crossing would be optimally located so as to not conflict with the existing/potential future transit zones on SE 320th Street and to align with major pedestrian building access/egress routes within the Trades Replacement Complex and future planned campus buildings on the south side of SE 320th Street. Historically, a majority of access to the GRCC campus via pedestrian trips is via the 124th Avenue SE corridor. This demand comes mainly from multifamily complexes east of 124th Avenue SE along SE 312th Street. A majority of this demand occurs along the east side of 124th Avenue SE as this is the most direct pedestrian route into campus from these high density residential complexes. While construction of a continuous sidewalk system along the west side of 124th Avenue SE between SE 312th Street and SE 320th Street would be completed as part of this project and the roadway improvements funded by GRCC, a significant shift in pedestrian travel from the east side of 124th Avenue SE to the west side of 124th Avenue SE is not expected as the pedestrian route along the east side would continue to provide the most direct route for these existing trips. The approximate location and increased demand for pedestrian crossings on SE 320th Street with and without the Trades Replacement Complex are provided in Figure 19 during peak morning and afternoon hours. As shown, increases in pedestrian crossing maneuvers of SE 320th Street as a result of the Trades Replacement Project would generate an estimated net increase of between 30 and 55 pedestrian trips per hour of SE 320th Street. In the context of long range redevelopment of the main GRCC campus and the Trades Replacement Complex, the mid-block pedestrian crossing proposed by GRCC across SE 320th Street would eventually replace the existing signalized crosswalk on the west side of the 124th Avenue SE and SE 320th Street intersection when the main campus access is reconstructed, depending on the type of intersection improvement selected. The mid-block crosswalk would have a pedestrian activated push button system to activate both in-pavement and overhead flashers to notify drivers of a crossing movement. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 58 CD a (D m~ -o m n) ° n CL 0 CL M3 > > } Existing ° (U Exlstln . k p Ped-Actuated m Marked; Crosswalk r Crosswalk 20 at Traffic Signal A k. p " _ rt 30 , t x r KX i~ ~~°#p.` U 20 Proposed 'f Mid-Block LEGEND. Raised Crosswalk Increased Pedsetrian Crossings r Ped-Activated of fl of SE 320th Street with Trades Flashing Amber Beacons & In Pavement Flashers s AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 10 . t A6 i Figure 19 GRCC Trades Transportation Replacement. Complex +J Engineering SE 320th Street NorthWest, LLC Auburn; WA Increased Pedestrian Crossings Traffic ln,pm scuny L _j i In addition, to eliminate any conflict between existing pedestrian routes from site generators as well as the on-site campus housing, in its Master Planning effort GRCC is ,proposing to realign the existing main site access into. campus at the 124th Avenue SE and SE :32, 01h Street intersection, and construct a grade separated pedestrian bridge between the east -side of. 124th Avenue SE, campus housing, and the interior of campus. This would significantly enhance the overall operation of the planned intersection improvements and main campus road realignment and, in combination with the proposed mid-block crossing, of SE 320th Street, minimize the overall impact of pedestrian traffic on arterial flow while at the same time eliminating existing points of conflict between pedestrian and vehicle movements on both public streets and, interior campus roadways. This would include the heavy pedestrian crossing demand at the existing signal of 124th Avenue SE and SE 320th Street as well as pedestrian demand between student housing/overflow parking on the northeast of campus and main campus. Transportation Impact Fees The City of Auburn's Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule, January 1, 2009, does not currently identify a transportation impact fee for colleges. On a per trip basis, the existing impact fee within the City of. Auburn is approximately $3,844 per p.m. peak hour trip (estimated from the existing impact fee rate schedule effective as of January 1, 2009). As the site is, estimated to generate approximately 20 net new p.m. peak hour vehicle trips, the transportation impact fee that would be required for the net increase in trips is $76,880 for these trips. The City's impact fee ordinance however, calculates fees based on gross trips and does not allow for transfer of existing trips that would be relocated from the existing main GRCC campus across the street to the Trades Replacement Complex. This means that the 32 p:m. peak hour, vehicle trips that are "captured" or "relocated" to the new complex would also be treated by the City of Auburn as "new trips" and therefore subject to transportation impact fees. Credits for transferring these trips would remain on the main GRCC campus. Accounting for these trips, an additional $123,008 in impact fees would be required by the City of Auburn. The total transportation impact fee normally assessed by the City of Auburn, therefore, would be $199,888. However, as provided for in the Auburn Municipal Code (Section 19.04.060 Credits and adjustments), the College may be eligible for a credit against payment of impact fees given that the College is dedicating land and constructing a portion of non-project transportation ' system improvements identified by the City of Auburn along 124th Avenue SE. The portion of the planned roadway improvements along 124th Avenue SE related to property frontage or site access needs would not be eligible for credit, but those portions related to widening and frontages that extendbeyond those project requirements would be eligible. The 124th Avenue SE roadway improvement project was recently constructed and the total costs of the project improvements incurred by GRCC was approximately $2.6 million (see Appendix G; Attachment D, for cost breakdown summary). Property frontage and site access improvements within the project costs constitute approximately 60 percent of this figure, and Green River Community College - = } Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 60 therefore, GRCC is eligible for a credit of roughly $1.04 million (40 percent of the total figure). As this figure does not include donation of right-of-way, the eligible credit is considered conservative. While this evaluation identifies the methodology of the impact fee calculation, the actual fee and credit will be determined at the time of building permit issuance based on the traffic impact fee schedule in effect at that time. The City of Auburn is currently evaluating the eligibility of a potential impact fee credit. Proposed Project Mitigation Measures A review of impacts to roadways, intersection levels of service, queuing, site access, safety, and circulation issues, parking, public transportation services, and nonmotorized transportation facilities, was conducted in association with the proposed development. The following items outline recommended mitigation measures, to reduce or eliminate project impacts identified for the proposed Trades Replacement Complex. ■ Construct the proposed site access, frontage, and arterial widening improvements along 124th Avenue SE from SE 320th Street to SE 316th Street. This mitigation would complete portions of City TIP projects #39, #40, and #42. ■ Construct frontage improvements along SE 320th Street and identify a reserve area to allow for potential future installation of a transit zone on the northeast corner of the 122nd Avenue E and SE 320th Street intersection. ■ Install a mid-block crossing treatment along SE 320th Street with pedestrian activated warning system. ■ Construct the associated internal trail system between site frontage, around the buildings, and to the future City Park to the north of the site. ■ The applicant is subject to a transportation impact fee administered by the City of Auburn. The actual impact fee and credit evaluation would be performed at the time of building permit issuance. The City of Auburn is currently evaluating the eligibility of a potential impact fee credit due to transportation system improvements completed by the College to 124th Avenue SE. ■ Planned transportation improvements along the 124th Avenue SE corridor are not currently within the City's Traffic Impact Fee program. To mitigate project impacts at those intersections, which would not meet adopted LOS standards with or without the Trades project, a proportional share contribution is proposed. The Trades project proportional share of mitigation is defined as its percentage contribution to intersection entering . traffic or added traffic along a roadway segment, which translates to its percentage of intersection improvement costs. Note that some TIP projects identified for the SE 320th Street and 124th Ave. SE corridors (TIP # 39 and TIP #42) are not related to the Trades project and are not proposed as mitigation. Proportional share estimates (identified in Appendix G) are as follows: Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 61 o Intersection #1-124th Avenue SE / SE 312th Street - City TIP Project #41: Improvement Needed to Meet Adopted LOS Standard: Install an additional westbound left turning lane and a southbound receiving lane on SE 124th Avenue SE as identified in the TIP Project #41. Note: Contribution toward the southbound receiving lane is identified below. Proportional Share Calculation at Intersection: 2015 Totaling Entering Volumes of 1,998, of which, 23 trips are new Project Trips. Proportional share is therefore 1.2 percent. o Intersection #2 - 124th Avenue SE / SE 314th Street and Intersection #3 - 124th Avenue SE / SE 316th Street - TIP Project #40: Improvement Needed to Meet Adopted LOS Standard: Continuation of the existing roadway section recently constructed by GRCC (i.e., two southbound through lanes, a center turning lane, and a northbound through lane) as identified by the City TIP #40 from just south of SE 316th Street to SE 312th Street would address existing level of service deficiencies at both intersection locations. GRCC recently completed a portion of the improvements identified in TIP #40 through widening, frontage and other enhancements constructed along 124th Avenue SE. The proportional share contribution toward this project identified for Intersection #1 (1.2 percent) would also satisfy the projects proportional cost for the southbound receiving lane at Intersection #1. At intersection #2 - 124th Avenue SE / SE 314th Street, the City could implement alternative strategies at this location to address existing level of service deficiencies, including turning movement restrictions, modifying the methodology for unsignalized level of service analysis to include both stop and yield controlled movements in the delay calculation, or modifying the LOS standard for this intersection or corridor. Proportional Share Calculation Along 124th Avenue SE Roadway Segment: 2015 Totaling Directional Volumes on 124th Avenue SE of 1,368, of which 23 trips are new Project Trips. Proportional share is therefore 1.7 percent. ■ Develop and implement a Parking Management Program for facilities at the Trades Replacement Complex. This Program would assign parking for staff and students associated with the Trades program within the main parking lot constructed at the site, identify monitoring efforts, and other program elements. The program would be submitted at the time of building permit application. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 62 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH - NOISE The following report was prepared by The Greenbusch Group, an acoustical engineering and consulting firm. Resumes of key project personnel are contained in Appendix E. The following noise mitigation elements have been incorporated into the design of the Trades proposal, and are assumed in the analysis: ■ All program work areas: Cellular acoustical decking on the roof, minimum 3 inch thickness; and acoustical wall panels for not less than 33% of the total wall area. ■ Auto Body: Screen wall 18 feet tall and 216 feet long west of the building. ■ Carpentry and Welding: Solid fencing section 8 feet tall, 265 feet long, and 5 feet from the northern property line common to the GRCC Childcare Facility property. 2.3.1 Study Methodology & Applicable Standards Noise Surveys of Existing Programs Noise levels associated with the existing Trades and Industry program at Green River Community College are the basis for this study. The following programs were surveyed: ■ Auto Body; ■ Automotive Repair; ■ Carpentry; ■ Manufacturing; ■ Welding. Noise surveys were conducted on days where GRCC faculty and staff indicated typical or louder-than-typical noise levels were being generated. In many instances, faculty directed students to engage in noisier activities during the surveys to ensure the upper limit of typical sound emissions was characterized. Louder events of shorter duration (i.e. impact noise from hammers in Auto Body), that could be more apparent to some residential neighbors, were evaluated separately. These events were analyzed with a noise descriptor, described below, that allowed us to characterize the loudest events with the shortest duration. The resulting survey and subsequent analysis was therefore conservative. Photos taken during the field surveys are included in Appendix E. Survey of Existing Sound Levels at New Trades Facility Location Existing sound levels were also surveyed at the new Trades facility location to determine how Project sound levels would increase the current ambient condition. While this is not required by Code, it was used to help guide mitigation that would minimize resulting impacts on the community. Sound levels were measured at two locations where existing sound levels were expected to be the lowest and where sound levels from the Project were expected to be the highest, resulting in a conservative analysis. Existing sound levels were also measured near 1241h Avenue SE to document pre-construction traffic Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 63 i I i noise levels. Sound data was collected for six full days, between April 22-26, 2010 and June 11-14, 2010, including both weekday and weekend conditions. Computer Noise Model I The primary tool used for the sound level prediction was a 3-D computer noise model. This model was created with the acoustic modeling software Cadna/A. Cadna/A uses the CADNA (Control of Accuracy and Debugging for Numerical Applications) computation engine developed by the Pierre et Marie Curie University of Paris. The model accounted for the effects of distance, estimated site grading, existing topography, and surface reflections on sound levels predicted for the Project. Propagation calculations were based on the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9613 evaluation method. All programs (Auto Body, Automotive Repair, Carpentry, Manufacturing, and Welding.) were modeled individually to help identify dominant sound sources of each. Noise Nomenclature The auditory response to sound is a complex process that occurs over a wide range of tones and sound levels. Decibel levels, or "dB," are a form of shorthand that compresses this broad range of levels with a convenient numerical scale. The decibel scale is logarithmic. For example, using the decibel scale, a doubling of energy causes the sound j level to increase by 3 dB. 3 dB is generally considered to be the minimum increase perceptible to a human observer. However, a 3-dB increase does not double the perceived loudness. Six to ten times the energy is needed to result in a perceived doubling of loudness, which is an increase of 8-10 dB. Common sound levels are reported in Table 13 below. The following mathematical descriptors correlate with human response to sound, and are used to assess sounds that vary over time: ■ A-weighted Decibel (dBA) The human ear has a unique response to sound pressure. It is less sensitive to those sounds falling outside the speech frequency range. Sound level meters and monitors utilize a filtering system to approximate human perception of sound. Measurements made utilizing this filtering system are referred to as "A weighted" and are called "dBA". ■ Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) Equivalent Sound Level is the average of a time-varying A-weighted sound level during a specified interval. The Leq is used to characterize complex, fluctuating sound levels with a single number. This study utilizes an hourly Leq. ■ Maximum Sound Level (Lma,,) Lmax is the maximum recorded A-weighted sound level for a given time interval or event. This study utilizes an hourly Lma., "fast" (125 millisecond averaging time) as a more conservative metric for assessing Code compliance and to correlate with the typical response time of the human ear. ■ Micropascal (µ&a) Sound pressure in air is generally measured in the unit of micropascals. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 64 Table 13. A-weighted Levels of Common Sounds Approximate Sound Sound Levell Relative Loudness2 Jet Plane @ 100 feet 130 128 Rock Music with Amplifier 120 64 Thunder, Danger of Permanent Hearing Loss 110 32 Boiler Shop, Power Mower 100 16 Orchestral Crescendo at 25 feet 90 8 Busy Street 80 4 Interior of Department Store 70 2 Ordinary Conversation @ 3 feet 60 1 Existing Project Site at Eastern Property Line (Location D)3 57 1 Quiet Car at Low Speed 50 1/2 Existing Project Site at Western Property Line (Location A) 3 49 1/2 Average Office 40 1/4 Existing Project Site at Northern Property Line (Location B) 3 40 1/4 City Residence, Interior 30 1/8 Quiet Country Residence, Interior 20 1/16 Rustle of Leaves 10 1/32 Threshold of Hearing 0 1/64 1. Sound pressure level, dBA re: 20 µPa 2. As compared to ordinary conversation at 3 feet. 3. Average evening sound level. Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Aircraft Noise Impact Planning Guidelines for Local Agencies, November 1972. ■ Percent Sound Level (Ln) Percent Sound Level is the sound level that is exceeded n percent of the time; for example, Log is the level exceeded 8% of the time. L25 is the sound level exceeded 25% of the time. Percent sound levels can help isolate louder events of short duration in a given measurement period, the smaller the percentage, the more shorter-duration events influence the value. ■ Sound Pressure Level (SPL) Sound pressure level correlates with what is heard by the human ear. SPL is defined as the squared ratio of the sound pressure with reference to 20 micropascal (gPa). Sound pressure is affected by distance, path, barriers, directivity, etc. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 65 The appropriate descriptor for a given situation will depend on the following noise source, receiver, and analysis conditions: ■ Transient character of the sound (constant level, changes frequently over time, etc.); ■ Jurisdictional criteria (descriptors defined by code, interpretations of code requirements, existing sound levels, etc.); ■ Source characterization (influence of each sound source). Regulatory Criteria City of Auburn The City of Auburn limits sound levels emanating from the project property ("Site") based on standards identifies Auburn City Code ("ACC") Chapters 8.28 and 18.31. Chapter 8.28 prohibits noise based on public disturbance, in residential zoning classifications. This standard does not apply to the Trades project, which will be located in an Institutional zone. Chapter 18.31 adopts, by reference, permissible sound levels established by Washington State in the Washington Administrative Code ("WAC") 173- 60. Chapter 18.31 also requires that noise from "commercial or industrial activities" be "muffled so as to not become objectionable due to intermittent beat, frequency or shrillness, and shall not exceed those standards as determined by Chapter 173-60 WAC, as amended." Although the Trades project is categorized as an "educational" use rather than as commercial or industrial, the noise-generating activities associated with the Project may be considered industrial in character and may generate noises that would fit the description of "intermittent beat, frequency or shrillness." Therefore, mitigation has been incorporated in the Trades project design to reduce objectionable sound characteristics identified by ACC 18.31. State of Washington The State of Washington defines permissible noise levels in WAC Chapter 173-60, and these levels are adopted by reference in ACC Chapter 18.31. Permissible noise levels are based on the Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement ("EDNA") of the area, which is based on zoning as follows: ■ Class A EDNA - Residential; ■ Class B EDNA - Commercial; ■ Class C EDNA - Industrial. Permissible noise levels transmitted between two unrelated properties are listed in Table 14 below. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 66 Table 14. WAC 173-60-40 Maximum Permissible Environmental Noise Levels (dBA re: 20 µPa) EDNA of Sound Source EDNA of Receiving Property Class A Class B Class C Class A 55 57 60 Class B 57 60 65 Class C 60 65 70 The Trades site is proposed to be rezoned Institutional, which is considered Class B EDNA. Adjacent properties to the West and East are zoned Residential, which is considered Class A EDNA. The properties to the North include a future park and the GRCC Childcare Facility, a related property. For purposes of this analysis, the northern properties are considered Class B EDNA to account for potential noise impacts at the GRCC Childcare Facility. These EDNA classifications establish permissible baseline noise levels of 57 dBA at western and eastern property lines and 60 dBA at the northern property line. The adjacent property to the south, the College Campus, is owned by GRCC and is therefore a related property, and exempt from compliance with noise level limits defined in Table 14. Periodic exceedances of baseline levels are allowed in any given hour in WAC 173-60- 040 as follows: 5 dBA for 15 minutes, or; 10 dBA for 5 minutes, or; 15 dBA for 1.5 minutes. In order to isolate shorter duration events that would utilize these exceedance allowances, the percent sound level (Ln) descriptors are used to correlate level with a percentage of time exceeded. While the State noise regulations do not include guidance on how to assess these allowed exceedances, it is a widely accepted practice among acousticians evaluating noise levels for projects in Washington State, to assign percent sound level (Ln) descriptors as shown in Tables 15 and 16 below. Table 15. Permissible Noise Levels at Class A EDNA Properties (dBAre: 20 Pa) Descriptor Exceedance Allowance Level Description None - baseline Code Assures that the sound level is equal to the L25 level 57 baseline level for at least 75% of the hour. +5 dBA for 15 minutes 62 Applies the 5-dBA exceedance for short Los events. +10 dBA for 5 minutes 67 Applies the 10-dBA exceedance for shorter Loz events. +15 dBA for 1.5 minutes 72 Assures the sound level of the shortest events I'maX never goes above the 15-dBA exceedance. Source: The Greenbusch Group Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 67 Table 16 Permissible Noise Levels at Class B EDNA Properties (dBA re: 20 Pa) Descriptor Exceedance Allowance Level Descri tion None - baseline Code Assures that the sound level is equal to the I'25 level 60 baseline level for at least 75% of the hour. +5 dBA for 15 minutes 65 Applies the 5-dBA exceedance for short Los events. +10 dBA for 5 minutes 70 Applies the 10-dBA exceedance for shorter Loz events. +15 dBA for 1.5 minutes 75 Assures the sound level of the shortest events Lmax never goes above the 15-dBA exceedance. Source: The Greenbusch Group, 2010 Generally speaking, one descriptor will be the most limiting for assessing the code compliance of a specific activity. - For example, a steady sound source such as a motorized fan would be limited by the baseline . sound level, because it never has the opportunity to utilize exceedance allowances due to its constant and unchanging sound emission. In this case, the L25 would be used to assess the continuous noise generated by the fan. A loud event of short duration, such as the pounding of a hammer on a vehicle frame, will utilize the exceedance allowances. Which exceedance allowance is utilized depends on how many times the hammer strikes the vehicle frame. If the hammer strikes the vehicle frame once per hour (or one hammer strike is much louder than the others), the maximum sound level (Lma,) would be used to assess the noise generated by the hammer. If the hammer strikes the frame more often, either the L02 or Los percent sound levels would be used. This study assesses Code compliance based on the most limiting descriptor, which varies from program to program, as shown in Table 17 below. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 68 Table 17. Descriptors Used for Code Compliance Assessment Program Limiting Reasoning Descriptor Compliance limited by very short duration Auto Body Lmax events. Automotive L Compliance limited by very short duration Repair max events. Carpentry L02 Compliance limited by shorter duration events. Compliance limited by very short duration Manufacturing Lmax events. Welding L02 Compliance limited by shorter duration events. Source: The Greenbusch Group, 2010 2.3.3 Affected Environment Land Uses in Project Vicinity Properties immediately adjacent and west of the Site are zoned R7 Residential and occupied by single family homes. Adjacent properties to the East across 124`h Ave SE are zoned R5 Residential and occupied by single and multi-family homes. Two properties bound the site to the North. The northwestern parcel is assumed to be developed as a park in the near term and will not be used for human habitation; it is therefore is considered Class B EDNA. The GRCC Childcare Facility located on the property to the northeast is a commercial use and also Class B EDNA. The existing Green River Community College campus is a related property located to the South across SE 320`h St and is zoned Institutional, corresponding to Class B EDNA. Existing Ambient Sound Levels Existing pre-construction ambient sound levels were documented at four locations near the site: along the property lines closest to the noise generating activities, and at positions expected to show the largest contrast in existing ambient noise levels. A total of 146 hours of data was collected. The first monitoring period included 84 hours of continuous monitoring between April 22 and April 26, 2010. Temperatures were between 36 and 63 degrees Fahrenheit and humidity ranged between 28 and 100 percent. Average wind conditions varied between calm and 16 miles per hour, with gusts up to 22 miles per hour. A total of 0.3 inches of rain fell during the measurement period. Measurement data suspected to have been influenced by weather conditions was excluded from the calculation of existing ambient sound levels. A thin film membrane was placed over the microphones to prevent equipment damage; the insertion loss of this material was included in the calibration. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 69 The second monitoring period included 62 hours of continuous monitoring between June 11 and June 14, 2010. Temperatures were between,43 and 74 degrees Fahrenheit and humidity ranged between 40 and 100 percent. Average wind conditions varied between calm and 12 miles per hour, with gusts up to 15 miles per hour. No rain fell during the measurement period. However, during the monitoring period, local law enforcement was near one of the sound level meters responding to a call placed by a community member suspicious of the equipment. The time when the officer was near the microphone was excluded from the calculation of existing ambient sound levels. The equipment used during the measurements is described in Table 18 below. Table 18. Measurement Equipment Used Last Factory Make Model Classifications Serial # Calibration Date . NL-32 sound 00161680 level meter 00161681 Rion microphone IEC 61672-1 (2002) 18454 Class 1 18455 preamp Rion UC-53A 309751 01/07/10 micropone 315851 CAL250 1193 Larson calibrator ANSI S1.40-1984 Davis (82001), IEC 60942 CAL200 (2003) 5463 calibrator Source: The Greenbusch Group, 2010 Monitoring locations are described in Table 19, and are shown graphically in Appendix E (Figure 5.2 and Photos 5.1-5.8). Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 70 Table 19. Existing Ambient Sound Level Monitoring Locations -z Location Description Approximate GPS Coordinates First monitoring period Location A Western. property line 47°18'58.14"N 122°10'43.81"W Location B Northern property line 47019'1.68"N 122010'39.01"W Second monitoring period Location C Eastern property line 47°19'1.40"N 122°10'35.80"W Location D Eastern property line 47°18'58.07"N 122°10'35.98"W Source: The Greenbusch Group, 2010 The measured ambient sound levels are summarized in Table 20. Full hourly measurement data is included in Appendix E. As shown in the table, sound levels vary significantly throughout the day. The measurement results show a varying acoustic environment with a complex combination of steady sounds, medium-duration sounds, and short-duration sounds. J Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 71 Table 20. Ranges of Existing Ambient Sound Levels (dBA re: 20+ Pa) Location ID Overal Hourl Hourl Hourl Hourl Hourt 1 Le Le L25 Lob Lot Lmax Daytime (7: 00 a. m. - 7: 00 p. m.) Location A (western 52 49-58 48-57 53-62 55-67 64-88 PL) Location B (northern 45 40-51 40-49 43-54 48-60 58-77 PL) Location C (eastern 62 56-64 48-65 59-70 68-72 76-95 PL) Location D (eastern 58 51-65 48-60 56-64 62-67 74-98 PL) Evening (7:00 p. m. -10: 00 p. m) Location A (western 49 48-51 48-51 51-53 54-57 64-76 PL) Location B (northern 40 39-41 39-42 42-44 45-49 56-67 PL) Location C (eastern 62 60-62 57-62 66-68 70-71 79-94 PL) Location D (eastern 57 55-60 53-58 61-62 64-66 72-94 PL) Nighttime (10: 00 p. m. - 7:00 a. m.) Location A (western 47 37-55 36-56 38-58 44-61 56-76 PL) Location B (northern 44 30-54 29-47 32-59 36-65 45-74 PL) Location C (eastern 58 47-63 35-61 40-68 52-72 71-92 PL) Location D (eastern 53 42-58 34-57 38-63 49-66 64-88 PL) Source: The Greenbusch Group, 2010 Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 72 2.3.4 Noise Impacts Program Sound Levels Field surveys were conducted on April 22 and 26, 2010 to document existing sound levels associated with typical program operations. In some cases (Auto Body, Automotive, and Manufacturing), measurements were repeated to document multiple use conditions. In all cases, several operations were occurring at once. The highest measured sound levels were used in the analysis. Measured interior noise levels are summarized in Table 21 below. Measurement data from the field surveys is used in this study as the basis for the sound sources in the assessment of environmental sound emissions from the Project. Table 21. Summary of Measured Interior Program Sound Levels (dBA re: 20 µPa) Program Le L9o Lzs Los Lot Lmax Auto Body 88 78 86 93 96 103 Automotive Repair 70 64 68 73 79 93 Carpentry 92 86 93 95 97 101 Manufacturing 80 70 79 82 87 93 Welding 80 74 80 84 88 92 Source: The Greenbusch Group, 2010 Analysis Assumptions Building Envelope Preliminary building design information from S.M. Stemper Architects was used for modeling various program sound emissions at neighboring property lines. The following generic building construction specifications were used in the modeling: ■ Windows and skylights 1-inch insulated glazing: 1/4-inch glass, 1/2-inch airspace, 1/4-inch glass. ■ Doors Man doors: hollow metal with weather stripping, doors normally closed; Sectional doors at Auto Body, Automotive Repair, and Manufacturing: 1/2-inch laminated glass, occasionally open. Coiling doors at Carpentry and Welding: typical steel construction, occasionally open. ■ Roofs Structural roof decking, R-30 rigid insulation, EPDM roof; 5-foot parapets on all building roofs. ■ Walls 14-inch tilt-up concrete panel walls with rigid insulation. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 73 On-site Parking On-site vehicle parking lots were incorporated in the'noise model. Sound emissions from on-site parking were calculated using the German RLS-90 standard with the following inputs: Bullpen: • 41 stalls; • Typical "Auto" sound emissions; • 51 % turnover during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.); • 51 % turnover during evening hours (7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.); • 0% turnover during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.). Main lots: • 119 stalls; • Typical "Auto" sound emissions; • 33% turnover during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.); • 10% turnover during evening hours (7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.); • 0% turnover during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.). Off-site Traffic The traffic impact analysis, contained in Section 2.2 of the Expanded Environmental Checklist, indicates a predicted increase of approximately 2% in local street traffic due to the project (34 new peak daytime trips with 1,514 existing and 17 new peak nighttime trips with 775 existing). This increase is not expected to result in any quantifiable increase to traffic noise levels and does not warrant further noise analysis. Program Sound Levels Broadband sound levels shown in Table 21 were further detailed utilizing field survey data to account for frequency characteristics of the generated noise, transmission loss of building constructions, and propagation to nearby properties. Sound pressure level spectra used for each program are shown in Appendix E. Mitigation Measures Incorporated Into the Project Design A number of mitigation measures, described below, have been incorporated into the Trades site plan and building design to address noise concerns. The analysis assumes that these measures will be implemented. General Interior Treatments To reduce reverberant build-up of noise within the buildings, absorptive acoustical treatments have been included in the design. Treatment has been included on the entire ceiling with the use of acoustical roof decking. The walls will also receive partial treatment (33%) in the upper areas. Locating the material high on the wall will reduce damage from users, tools, and equipment. The following products will be specified for use in all work areas that contain noise-generating activities: Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 74 • 3-inch acoustical cellular decking (perforated metal interior surface, solid metal roofing surface), similar to EPIC Metals EP300A;Yminimum NRC 0.85. • Wall panels with 2-inch compressed fiberglass board, similar to Owens Corning 703. Coverings could include perforated metal with least 50% open area, expanded metal, or wire mesh screens. Auto Body Program function requires that vehicles move in and out of the building as work progresses. Requiring all sectional doors to remain closed after 7 p.m. to reduce noise would have unacceptable impacts on the program. In order to reduce sound emissions from the program when sectional doors are open, a screen wall has been incorporated into the design to shield neighboring western properties from the noise generated inside the building. Features of the screen wall are as follows: • 18 foot tall screen wall located above the retaining wall west of the building, running north-south for 216 feet. • Absorptive treatment on the surface of the wall facing the buildings • The material must be durable and weather-resistant, such as Quash FR 2000 (closed-cell extruded polyethylene foam). Perforated metal panels with at least 50% open area could provide added protection; • The screen wall could include a cantilevered top angling towards the building to provide some additional screening and help to keep the acoustical paneling dry, but is not required. Carpentry and Welding The Carpentry program area includes a large open work area that needs to remain open to the exterior. The current design includes a large opening on the north side of the building to incorporate this requirement. The Welding program area includes a roll-up door that will occasionally remain open for deliveries. In order to reduce sound emissions from these programs when the roll-up doors are open, the northern property line fence will include a solid section to shield neighboring northern properties from the noise generated inside the building. The fence design would be as follows: • One solid section of 8 foot tall fence • Located 5 feet from the northern property line common to the GRCC Childcare Facility, running east-west for 265 feet. • This section of fence will include a solid panel with a minimum surface weight of 2.5 pounds per square foot. Automotive and Manufacturing No additional mitigation is required. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 75 Compliance with Applicable Noise Standards This subsection evaluates the predicted sound level for operation of each individual Trades program, and for parking areas and mechanical equipment. It also identifies noise levels for the Trades facility as a whole. The relationship of sound levels to noise limits in the Auburn City Code is identified for each program and project component. Individual Program Operations Auto Body: The Auto Body area is expected to include three sectional doors (one North- facing on the West side of the building, and two East-facing), two East-facing man doors, windows, and skylights. Sound levels generated by the Auto Body program can be very transient in nature, with very short-duration, high-intensity sound. from activities such as banging of tools on car frames and panels. Therefore, the maximum sound level (Lmax) is the most appropriate descriptor to assess Code compliance. Table 22. Auto Body Program Sound Levels (dBA re: 20 ItPa) Receiver, Lmax Noise Source . Condition Sound Meets Location Code Level Code? West property 61 72 Yes Current design, line Typical Auto Body including mitigation, North property 75 activities roll-up doors open. line 61 Yes East property line 60 72 Yes Source: The Greenbusch Group, 2010 Automotive Maintenance: The Automotive Maintenance area is expected to include four sectional doors (two West-facing, two East-facing), two West-facing man doors, windows, and skylights. Noise generated by Automotive Maintenance can also be very transient in nature, where infrequent loud events can govern the sound emission. Therefore, the maximum sound level (Lmax) is the most appropriate descriptor to assess Code compliance. Table 23. Automotive Maintenance Pro ram Sound Levels (dBA re: 20 Pa) Lmax Noise Source Condition Receiver Location Sound Code Meets Level Code? Current design, West property line 58 72 Yes Typical Automotive including North property line 59 75 Yes Maintenance activities mitigation, roll-up doors open. East property line 50 72 Yes Source: The Greenbusch Group, 2010 Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 76 Carpentry: The Carpentry area is expected to include a West-facing double man door, windows, skylights, and an open work area with alarge opening to the north. Sound levels generated by carpentry activities also fluctuate with time, but not as much as Auto Body and Automotive. Sound levels are higher when wood is being worked or cut by saws or planers. Given the longer duration of louder events, the L02 is the most appropriate descriptor to assess Code compliance. Table 24. Carpentry Program Sound Levels (dBA re: 20 µPa) L02 Noise Source Condition Receiver Location Sound Meets Level Code Code? Current design, West property line 45 67 Yes Typical Carpentry including North property line 52 70 Yes activities mitigation roll-up door open. East property line 47 67 Yes Source: The Greenbusch Group, 2010 Manufacturing: The Manufacturing area is expected to include two man doors (one West-facing and one East-facing), windows, and skylights.Sound levels generated by manufacturing activities are generally low in level. Only occasionally are louder pieces of equipment (i.e. grinders, etc.) used. During these louder periods, the maximum sound level governs the sound emissions. Therefore, the maximum sound level (Lmax) is the most appropriate descriptor to assess Code compliance. Table 25. Manufacturing Program Sound Levels (dBA re: 20 µPa) LD1ax Noise Source Condition Receiver Location Sound Code . Meets Level Code? Current design, West property line 36 72 Yes Typical Manufacturing including North property line 41 75 Yes activities mitigation roll-up door open. East property line 43 72 Yes Source: The Greenbusch Group, 2010 Welding: The Welding area is expected to include a South-facing man door, windows, and skylights. There is an area open to the exterior, but this will only be used to receive material deliveries. Sound levels generated by welding activities include welding and various metal work activities (grinding, etc.). Given the longer duration of louder events, the L02 is the most appropriate descriptor to assess Code compliance. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 77 Table 26. Welding Program Sound Levels (dBA re: 20 µPa) L02 Noise Source Condition Receiver Location Sound Meets Level Code Code?.: Current design, West property line 35 67 Yes Typical Welding . including North property line 39 70 Yes activities mitigation roll-up door open. East property line 38 67 Yes Source: The Greenbusch Group, 2010 Parking Areas Average hourly sound levels were evaluated for the parking areas using the RLS-90 model (a German standard for predicting sound emissions from roadways and parking lots) and assumed to be similar in magnitude to L25. Modeling results are shown in Table 27 below. Table 27. Parking Lot Property Line Sound Levels (dBA re: 20 µPa) Lis Sound Level Noise Source Condition Receiver Location Meets (day/.evening Code Code? Bullpen: 51% West property line 43/43 57 Yes daytime and evening hourly turnover. North property line 44/44 60 Yes Parking lots Main lots: 33% daytime and 10% evening hourly East property line 39/34 57 Yes turnover Source: The Greenbusch Group, 2010 Exterior Mechanical Equipment All exterior mechanical equipment.(i.e. exhaust fans, heating and ventilating units, dust collection, paint booths, etc.) will be required to comply with State/City Noise Code limits. Given the early stage in design, detailed equipment sizing and location information is not available. Therefore, this assessment establishes acoustical design criteria for mechanical equipment that limits increases to existing noise, which is above and beyond what is required by City or State Code. These design criteria are presented in Table 28 below. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 78 Table 28. Mechanical Equipment Acoustical Design Criteria (dBA re: 20 µPa) Ley Noise Source Receiver Location Design Code Meets Criteria Code? West property 47 57 Yes line North property 40 60 Yes All mechanical line equipment in operation East property line 57 57 Yes South property N/A' N/A' N/A' line 1. The property to the south is a related GRCC property, and Code limits do not apply. Source: The Greenbusch Group, 2010 Composite Sound Emissions In addition to assessing the individual programs, the entire Project with all programs in operation was assessed. Due to the transient nature of the sound levels, it is not appropriate to simply combine property line sound levels from each program. For example, the chance that a hammer would hit a vehicle frame in Auto Body at the exact same time a hammer would hit a brake drum in Automotive is very unlikely. It is also inappropriate to combine percent sound levels with other percent sound levels, ruling out the use of L25 for the composite analysis. The Leq descriptor is the most appropriate metric for this assessment. This approach is further validated by a close correlation (within 0-1 dBA) between the measured Leq and L25 sound levels for most of the programs, allowing for the application of L25 Code levels. The exceptions were for programs with high levels of impact noise such as Auto Body and Automotive Repair, where the Leq was higher than the L25 by 5-8 dBA. In these two cases, applying the L25 Code levels represents a more conservative approach. Average sound levels (Leq) for each Program were activated simultaneously in the noise model; the results are shown in Table 29 below. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 79 Table 29. Composite Sound Levels (dBA re: 20 ItPa) Receiver Sound Level, Meets Noise Source Condition Leq (day / Code Location Code? evening) Current design, west property line 47/46 57 Yes including North property Programs and mitigation, line' 49/49 60 Yes parking lot excludin tyz g Childcare Facili 42/41 Yes HVAC3. East property line 48/47 57 Yes 1. Eastern end of northern property line, in 124`x' Ave SE right-of-way. 2. GRCC Childcare Facility outdoor play yards. These areas are expected to represent the most sensitive receiver locations for the northern adjacent properties. 3. Sound emissions from the HVAC systems will satisfy design criteria established in Section 8.3 and are included in the impact assessment in Section 9. Source: The Greenbusch Group, 2010 Changes to Existing Sound Levels Increases above existing ambient noise levels due to project conditions were also considered. This review is not required by any applicable noise regulations and is based on guidelines presented in the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region X document entitled "Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines" (EPA Region X, 1973). The EPA guidelines are not standards or development regulations and do not have the force of law, but they are useful indicators for potential noise impacts. Studies have shown that increases in noise correlate with the following expected community responses to an introduced noise source: • Up to 5 dBA increase - few complaints if increase is gradual • 5 to 10 dBA increase -more complaints, especially during sleeping hours • Over 10 dBA increase - substantial number of complaints In general, EPA does not recommend mitigation if the increase is less than 5 dBA. Some mitigation should be considered for increases of 5 to 10 dBA. Increases greater than 10 dBA would be considered serious and would warrant additional mitigation. The EPA document does not indicate either the time interval (i.e., hourly or daily) or the noise metric (e.g., Leq, Ln,aX, or Ldn) to which these impact/mitigation thresholds could be applied. This study looks at the time period when the increase to existing ambient sound levels is expected to be the highest, between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. This study also considers the composite sound emissions from the Trades project (instead of emissions from individual programs) to be the most appropriate to assess community impact. Therefore, the most appropriate descriptor for this analysis is the average hourly Leq between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. The results of this analysis, including the affects of the mitigation incorporated into the design and HVAC equipment sound emissions, are presented in Table 9.1 below. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 80 Table 30. Sound Level Increases (Average Evening Sound Levels, Leq) Predicted HVAC Existing Cumulative Resulting Receiver Location Sound Level Project Sound Design Level Increase Level Criteria Western property 49 46 47 52 3 North - Childcare Facility 401 41 40 45 5 Eastern property line 572 47 57 60 3 1. Assumed to be similar to data collected at the northern property line. 2. The quieter of the two monitoring locations. Source: The Greenbusch Group, 2010 While noise levels are predicted to increase from the existing condition, the mitigation incorporated into the proposal would reduce the impact that would otherwise occur and ensure that the project will comply with applicable noise limits. The GRCC Childcare Facility outdoor play yards are considered the most sensitive northern receivers and are the focus of the impact analysis. While increases above 5 dBA are expected in other areas of the northern properties, these are considered to be much less sensitive in conjunction with the future park use. 2.2.5 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures to address noise impacts have been incorporated into the planning of the site and design of the Trades buildings. The measures include the-following: General Interior Treatments To reduce reverberant build-up of noise within the buildings, absorptive acoustical treatments have been included in the design. Treatment has been included on the entire ceiling with the use of acoustical roof decking. The walls will also receive partial treatment (33%) in the upper areas. Locating the material high on the wall will reduce damage from users, tools, and equipment. The following products will be specified for use in all work areas that contain noise-generating activities: • 3-inch acoustical cellular decking (perforated metal interior surface, solid metal roofing surface), similar to EPIC Metals EP300A, minimum NRC 0.85. • Wall panels with 2-inch compressed fiberglass board, similar to Owens Corning 703. Coverings could include perforated metal with least 50% open area, expanded metal, or wire mesh screens. Auto Body Program function requires that vehicles move in and out of the building as work progresses. Requiring all sectional doors to remain closed after 7 p.m. to reduce noise would have unacceptable impacts on the program. In order to reduce sound emissions from the program when sectional doors are open, a screen wall has been incorporated into Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 81 the design to shield neighboring western properties from the noise generated inside the building. Features of the screen wall are as follows: • 18 foot tall screen wall located above the retaining wall west of the building, running north-south for 216 feet. • Absorptive treatment on the surface of the wall facing the buildings • The material must be durable and weather-resistant, such as Quash FR 2000 (closed-cell extruded polyethylene foam). Perforated metal panels with at least 50% open area could provide added protection; • The screen wall could include a cantilevered top angling towards the building to provide some additional screening and help to keep the acoustical paneling dry, but is not required. Carpentry and Welding The Carpentry program area includes a large open work area that needs to remain open to the exterior. The current design includes a large opening on the north side of the building to incorporate this requirement. The Welding program area includes a roll-up door that will occasionally remain open for deliveries. In order to reduce sound emissions from these programs when the roll-up doors are open, the northern property line fence will include a solid section to shield neighboring northern properties from the noise generated inside the building. The fence design would be as follows: • One solid section of 8 foot tall fence • Located 5 feet from the northern property line common to the GRCC Childcare Facility, running east-west for 265 feet. • This section of fence will include a wood construction solid panel with a minimum surface weight of 2.5 pounds per square foot. With implementation of the above measures, operation of the Trades facility would comply with the City's noise limits and performance standards. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 82 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 3. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM This section contains the City of Auburn's checklist form. Pages are numbered sequentially consistent with pagination of the Expanded Environmental Checklist. 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Trades Rezone and Administrative Use Permit 2. Name of Applicant: Green River Community College (State Board of Community & Technical Colleges) 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: A. Applicant: Agent (if applicable): Sam Ball, Dean of Instruction, Capital Projects Green River Community College 12401 SE 320th Street Auburn, WA 98092 253.288.3316 4. Date checklist prepared: September 9, 2010, Revised January 7, 2011, Revised June 1, 2011 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Auburn Planning and Development Department. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Building design would be completed following approval of the rezone and administrative use permit. A building permit would be applied for and construction would commence in 2013. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No further additions or expansions of the proposed Trades facility are contemplated. The existing Trades complex on the campus would be demolished following construction of the new facility. Renovations or minor expansions of existing buildings on the Green River Community College campus will occur in the future. As part of its campus master planning, the College is considering modifying the main entrance to the campus, which is located south of the Trades site. Street and intersection improvements will likely be required in connection with such future growth. Other proposals related to the Trades project include completion of a property exchange between the College and the City pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU, Revision Date: May 29, 2009 83 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT February 2010); construction of a new City park=pn the adjacent property (funded by the College); and recently completed transportation improvements on 1241h Ave. SE. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. ■ Geotechnical Report (GeoEngineers, 2010) - Appendix Al ■ Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (GeoEngineers, 2010) - Appendix A2 ■ Air Quality (ENVIRON, 2010) - Appendix B ■ Wetland Study (Keith Fabing, Inc, 2010) -Appendix C ■ Preliminary Storm Drainage Report (Reid Middleton, 2010) - Appendix D ■ Noise Study (The Greenbusch Group, 2010) - Section 2.3 of the Expanded Environmental Checklist ■ Historic Resources Survey (Northwest Archaeology Associates, 2010) - Appendix F ■ Traffic Impact Study (Transportation Engineering Northwest, 2011) - Section 2.2 and Appendix G of the Expanded Environmental Checklist; and Trip Generation Study (Transportation Engineering Northwest, 2011) 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. Applications for a boundary line adjustment and boundary line elimination for the adjacent Martin property were submitted to the City in June 2010. The College and the City are also completing a property exchange of the Lea Hill Park and Martin properties. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City approvals being sought at this time include: (a) a Rezone from Residential (R-5) to Institutional (1); and (b) an Administrative Use Permit to establish a College use on the property. Applications for building and construction permits would be applied for in 2013, following approval of the rezone and administrative use permit. Additional permits from the City of Auburn will be required for grading, infrastructure and utility improvements, and building construction. The new facility will also require an air quality permit from the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You need not repeat those answers on this page. Please see the project description in Section 1 of the Expanded Environmental Checklist. 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. Revision Date: May 29, 2009 84 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT A legal description is included with the application. The proposed Trades facility is located on what is currently Lea Hill Park, at the intersection of SE 320th Street and 124th Avenue, directly across the street from the Green River Community College campus. Location is shown on Figure 1. The 8.97-acre site is a single parcel (Assessor Parcel # 092105-9020) and consists of baseball and soccer fields, tennis courts and a playground. Current access to the site is from 122nd Ave. SE/SE 320th Street, and from 124th Ave. SE. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth A. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. The site is generally flat. B. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slope is estimated to be approximately 3%. Site grades range from elevation 434 in the southwest portion of the site, to elevation 426 to 422 across the ball fields, to elevation 412 at the southeast corner of the wetland. 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. Information on soils and geology is contained in the geotechnical report (GeoEngineers, 2010), Appendix Al of the Expanded Environmental Checklist. According to the NCRS, the site's soils are generally Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. Geologic information indicates that the native surficial soils are composed of moraine deposits consisting of thin ablation glacial till deposits over lodgement glacial till deposits. A wetland (approximately 33,000 square feet in area, including buffers) is located in the southeastern portion of the property. A portion of an off-site wetland (approximately 12,000 square feet) is located in the northwestern corner of the property. Site soils are not subject to liquefaction during an earthquake event. D. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There is no known history or indications of unstable soils on the site. E. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The proposal is a rezone and administrative use permit and no construction would occur as a result of approval. Site planning is in the early stages and quantities of grade and fill have not been determined at this time. Based on preliminary design Revision Date: May 29, 2009 85 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT plans, cuts of 5 to 10 feet would occur along a portion of the west access driveway, and fills up to approximately 6 feet would occur along the edge of the building on SE.320t' Street. A noise wall/retaining wall would be constructed along the western side of the site. Sources of fill have not been identified at this time. Recommended conditions regarding fill material are included in Appendix Al of the Expanded Environmental Checklist. F. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Some erosion could occur during construction but would be mitigated through application of best management practices summarized in subsection H below. Erosion potential of on-site soils is considered low to moderate. G. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The proposed building footprint is 65,000 square feet, which is 16.6 percent of the total site area (390,733 square feet). The total site development footprint - including building, parking areas and other impervious surfaces - is estimated at approximately 222,000 square feet. The balance of the site - approximately 168,733 square feet, or 43 percent of the total site area - would be retained in wetland, wetland buffer, existing vegetation and new landscaping. H. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth. Best management practices for erosion will be employed and include the following: ■ Prepare and implement a temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP). The TESCP may include a combination of interceptor swales, straw bale barriers, silt fences, and straw mulch for temporary protection of exposed soils. All disturbed areas should be finish graded and seeded as soon as practical to reduce the risk of erosion. • Schedule grading and construction to minimize soil exposure. ■ Vegetate and mulch denuded soils, and direct runoff away from these areas. ■ Keep runoff velocities low. ■ Trap sediment on site. ■ Inspect and maintain control measures frequently. All paved and landscaped areas would be graded to direct surface drainage away from buildings to catch basins. Water collected in roof downspouts would not be routed to pipe systems and not to footing drain lines. Additional recommendations to manage construction are included in Appendix Al. 2. Air A. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if know. Revision Date: May 29, 2009 86 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Appendix B of the Expanded Environmental Checklist includes an air quality report (ENVIRON, 2010). The following is based on information in that report. Construction activities would generate particulates including dust. Construction would require the use of heavy trucks and smaller equipment such as generators and compressors, which are sources of nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and odorous gases. Some phases of construction, such as paving operations using asphalt, would also generate short term, detectable odors. The Trades program includes operations - such as painting, woodworking and welding - that emit particulates, gases or odors as byproducts. The existing program is subject to a Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) permit, which requires regular evaluations. As at present, the facility will be designed to control emissions through the use of enclosures, baghouses, collection systems and other techniques. No complaints related to odors have been received by PSCAA, and none were detected during a field inspection of the existing facility. No significant air quality impacts are anticipated from operations. The Washington State Intersection Modeling Tool (WASIST) was used to evaluate traffic at the intersections of 124th Ave. SE/SE 312th Street and 124th Ave. SE/SE 320t' Street. This "hot spot" modeling assumed worst case traffic and meteological conditions. Both one-hour and eight-hour concentrations of CO were well below the applicable air quality standard, and no significant impacts would occur. B. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odors that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. The existing Trades facility on the GRCC campus currently produces some emissions, but this building would be demolished and activities relocated to the proposed new building. Vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways (SE 320th Street and 124th Ave. SE) is also a source of emissions. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Construction of the Trades project will require a Notice of Construction application and a permit from the PSCAA. PSCAA regulations are intended to protect the health of sensitive individuals and neighboring land uses from air pollutants. Emissions subject to PSCAA regulations include painting and machining woodworking equipment, and odors attributable to glues, solvents and paints. PSCAA rules prohibit odors from annoying neighbors. Dust would be controlled through the use of baghouses. Collection hoods on flexible arms would be used to capture welding fumes at the source. Construction contractors will be required to comply with PSCAA regulations which require precautions to avoid dust emissions. The use of on-site engines will also be required to be minimized to the extent practicable, and locating combustion fueled equipment as far as possible from nearby residences. PSCAA regulations also require control of odor-bearing contaminants to prevent potential effects to nearby people or property. Revision Date: May 29, 2009 87 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Other techniques to minimize construction related emissions include avoiding prolonged idling of vehicles and engine powered emissions; scheduling construction deliveries to avoid peak travel times; spraying areas of exposed soils, such as staging areas and construction roadways, with water to reduce dust emissions; wheel washing and covering dusty truck loads; and street cleaning. Water D. Surface 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands): If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. A critical area/wetland report is contained in Appendix C of this Expanded Environmental Checklist. Two wetlands are located on the site: Wetland A is located in the northwest corner of the site, the on-site portion of which is 216 square feet in area and has an associated 2,574 square foot buffer. Vegetation is characterized as palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) and palustrine emergent (PEM). Wetland B is located in the southeast portion adjacent to 124`h Ave. SE, and is 16,236 square feet in area, plus a 20,063 square foot buffer. Wetland vegetation is characterized as palustrine forested (PFO), palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS), and palustrine emergent (PEM). According to City of Auburn regulations (ACC 16.10.080), both wetlands are rated as Category III and require a minimum 25-foot buffer. No regulated streams are located on the site (Personal communication, Kelly McClain-Aardal, September 24, 2008). Besides identified wetlands, all other surface water features consist of man-made, intentionally created drainage facilities, and are excluded from the definition of "streams" pursuant to AMC 16.10.020. 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. The proposal is for a rezone and administrative use permit and will not involve any ground disturbing activity or construction. Based on the site plan, there would be no intrusion or disturbance of wetlands or wetland buffers. 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. No fill or other disturbance of wetlands would occur. All buildings and activities would be located outside wetlands and wetland buffers. Revision Date: May 29, 2009 88 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No withdrawals or diversions would occur. 5) Does.the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. The proposal does not lie within a 100-year floodplain. 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. Stormwater from the existing child care facility, a detention pond in the adjacent residential neighborhood, and the existing park is/will be discharged to Wetland B. Similarly, stormwater from the proposed Trades facility and from the 124th Ave SE improvement project would be discharged to this wetland. The details of the Trades stormwater management system is not available at this time. More detailed planning and design for the on-site stormwater system will be conducted prior to application for a building permit, and will consider hydrology inputs to the wetland, including analysis of seasonal hydroperiods. E. Ground 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No ground water will be withdrawn. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing any toxic chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) is (are) expected to serve. No waste material will be discharged into the ground from any source. The site would connect to the existing sanitary sewer system. F. Water Runoff (including storm water) 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. A Preliminary Storm Drainage Report (Reid Middleton, 2010) is included in Appendix D of this Expanded Environmental Checklist. Approximately 4.78 acres of the site will consist of impervious surface, including paved areas and building roof area. The stormwater system would consist of detention, conveyance, and water quality facilities. Detention would be provided by a combination of an on-site underground storage facility, designed according to the Western Washington Hydraulic Model, and an existing off-site detention facility on the College campus. Runoff will be collected and conveyed to the Revision Date: May 29, 2009 89 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT underground system by surface flow to a series of catch basins and storm pipes. Water quality treatment will be provided by a media filtration vault downstream of on-site detention system. Discharge rates, including discharge to the on-site wetland, will be managed according criteria in City of Auburn regulations. Approximately 38 percent of the site's runoff detention volume will be handled by an existing detention system on the GRCC campus, which ultimately discharges to the Green River. It is described in greater detail in Appendix D, and includes a series of gravel, boulder and vegetated retention areas. No significant downstream impacts are anticipated. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The proposed drainage system includes water quality controls to filter pollutants from stormwater before release to receiving waters. G. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any. The stormwater system is being designed according to City of Auburn stormwater management standards and requirements. As noted above, water quality controls are part of the proposed stormwater management system. The system will control stormwater discharge rates to avoid impacts to receiving waters, including the on-site wetland. Hydroperiod modeling would occur as detailed drainage design occurs, prior to application for a building permit. No downstream impacts are anticipated. 3. Plants A. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ❑ Deciduous Tree: Alder, Maple, Aspen, Other ❑ Evergreen Tree: Fir, Cedar, Pine, Other ❑ Shrubs ❑ Grass; ❑ Pasture ❑ Crop or Grain ❑ Wet Soil Plants: Cattail, Buttercup, Bullrush, Skunk Cabbage, Other ❑ Water Plants: Water Lily, Eelgrass, Milfoil, Other ❑ Other Types of Vegetation B. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The existing park site is used primarily as ball fields and contains some associated recreational areas and structures, including a dugout, tennis courts, a playground and a gravel parking area. The site surface consists primarily of grass and compacted dirt and is open in area. Evergreen and deciduous trees are located along the periphery of the site; there is a densely vegetated (primarily Himalayan blackberry) wetland, approximately '/4 acre in area, in the southeastern portion of the site, adjacent to 124th Ave SE and SE 320th Street. A small portion of an off-site wetland is located in the northwestern portion of the site. Revision Date: May 29, 2009 90 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Approximately 39 existing trees located in the, building footprint would be removed. These meet the definition of "significant trees" in ACC 18.50.030.E and would be replaced on site. Existing significant trees would be retained on the northern, eastern and western portions of the site. The existing wetlands and wetland buffers would not be disturbed; all existing vegetation would remain. Proposed landscaping is shown in Figure 4. The landscape plan includes a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees (approximately 170, excluding parking areas) throughout the site, as well as shrubs, grasses and ground cover. Dense plantings would be provided on the western and northeastern portions of the site to screen the site from adjacent residences. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site: Based on a review of Natural Heritage Information System data, administered by the Department of Natural Resources, there are no reports of threatened, endangered or rare species of plants on or near the site. D. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The site would be landscaped as shown on Figure 4. 4. Animals A. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: • Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: geese, ducks, crows, etc. • Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: rodents and other small mammals • Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: B. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. A search of the Priority Habitat & Species database maintained by the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife did not identify any priority habitat or species on or within 330 feet (100 meters) of the site. Green/Cedar River winter elk range is located approximately '/z mile southeast of the site. The site does not contain known wildlife areas according to City of Auburn maps (Comprehensive Plan map 9.2) C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The site is not part of a migration route. The winter elk range located along the Green River, approximately '/z mile southeast of the site, includes both resident and winter migratory elk. Revision Date: May 29, 2009 91 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT r D. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Retained and proposed vegetation, including the on-site wetlands, will provide habitat for common urban species. A landscape plan is included with the application. 5. Energy and Natural Resources A. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electric and natural gas will be used to meet the project's energy needs. Energy would be used for heating and cooling, and to power equipment used in the Trades program. B. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. Preliminary proposed buildings are maximum 36 feet in height. The adjacent property on the north is planned to be developed and used as a city park. Existing trees, which are taller than proposed buildings, would be retained on the east and west areas of the site. 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: A number of low impact development and energy conservation features are incorporated into the proposed design, including the following: ■ The Trades facility will be designed to LEED Silver standards. ■ Air conditioning would be limited to classrooms and office spaces and would not be provided in work spaces. ■ Design will include daylighting in offices, classrooms and labs wherever possible. High efficiency lighting and transformers will be used to increase energy performance. ■ Exterior lighting will use low level, full cutoff LED fixtures and will be "dark sky" compliant. ■ Building water use will be reduced by 40 percent (from the baseline). Irrigation water use will be reduced by 50 percent (from the baseline) once plants are established. 6. 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. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted for the site (GeoEngineers, 2010) and is included as Appendix A2. Database records did not reveal any history of on-site spills or contamination from off-site sources. No indications of prior petroleum releases were found. A residence formerly located on Revision Date: May 29, 2009 92 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT the property, prior to its development as Lea Hill Park, could have contained an above ground or underground storage tank for heating oil. Operation of the Trades programs does involve the use and storage of small amounts of toxic, hazardous or flammable substances. These include paint, oil, antifreeze, coolants, nitric acid, and welding gases (CO2, argon and oxygen). Measures to store and secure these substances is described below. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required: Emergency services could be required in the event of a fire. There is no history of incidents requiring emergency services in connection with the existing Trades facility. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: The building will be sprinklered, and fire extinguishers will be located in all program areas. Work areas would include systems (e.g., bag houses) to capture, contain and vent fumes and odors. Flammable materials would be stored in marked storage cabinets in program areas. Small amounts of accumulated wastes would be contained in storage rooms or marked cabinets. Fenced, locked and screened storage areas would be provided outside the buildings for welding gas bottles (CO2, argon, oxygen), antifreeze and oil. 7. Noise A. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Please refer to Section 2.3 and Appendix E of the Expanded Environmental Checklist. Traffic on SE 320th Street and 124th Ave. SE is the major source of noise in the area. B. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. A study of existing noise levels and noise that would be associated with operations of Trades (The Greenbusch Group, 2010). The study is incorporated in Section 2.3 of the Expanded Environmental Checklist. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impact, if any: Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design and are identified in Section 2.3. of this Expanded Environmental Checklist. Measures include the layout of buildings on the site, which would internalize noise, and construction of noise walls or solid fences on the western and northern portions of the site. Revision Date: May 29, 2009 93 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 1 8. Land and Shoreline Use Note: Additional information on Land Use is provided in Section 2.1 of the Expanded Environmental Checklist. A. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site of the proposal is currently Lea Hill Park, a neighborhood park owned and operated by the City of Auburn. The park includes two ball fields, a playground and tennis courts. The property to the north, which is owned by the College, is commonly referred to as the Martin property; it contains a single family residence and several outbuildings, and a childcare facility. Land uses to the east include single-family and multi-family residences. The Green River Community College Campus lies directly south of the site. Properties to the west are used for single family residences and a community club. B. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe: Based on review of historical records, the property was developed with a single family residence and outbuildings as of the 1930's. There is some anecdotal information that it may have been a small farm prior to that time. The site was developed as a King County park in 1976, and was acquired by the City of Auburn in 2002. C. Describe any structures on the site: Developed features and structures currently on the site include a dugout, backstops and bleachers associated with the ball fields; a small playground; and two tennis courts. D. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? All existing park structures will be demolished. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the College, the College and City would exchange the Lea Hill Park and Martin properties. The College would construct a new city park on the Martin property, and the College would acquire the Lea Hill park site for use as a College facility. The new park would be constructed in 2011, prior to construction of the Trades facility. Independent of the Trades proposal, proposed improvements to 124th Ave. SE will displace the existing playground for use as a stormwater detention pond. The playground would be relocated to the new City park on the Martin property. If the land exchange is not completed and the Trades facility does not go forward, then the playground would be replaced on the existing Lea Hill Park site. E. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The site is currently zoned Residential 5 (R5). F. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Revision Date: May 29, 2009 94 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT The site is designated Public/Quasi Public on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, and is intended to apply to public uses of a significant extent. Uses listed as compatible include "industrial and commercial uses which are affiliated with and managed by educational institutions for vocational educational purposes." Appropriate implementing zones include the Institutional Use (1) zone. G. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. H. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify: The site contains a wetland and a portion of an off-site wetland. It is also designated as within a Ground Water Protection Zone 4; Zone 4 encompasses the majority of the City and does not entail any specific regulatory requirements. 1. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? The Trades facility would be used to provide instruction and would not include any residential space. It would be used by approximately 12 faculty and 291 students total (approximately 10 faculty and 150 students at one time). J. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Development of a building on the site would not displace any residences or jobs. K. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Assuming the City-College MOU is implemented, Lea Hill Park, which currently occupies the site, would move to the adjacent site to the north. The College would finance construction of a new park on the Martin property. The new park would be constructed before the Trades facility is developed on the existing park site; given this timing, there would be no loss of use of a park in the Lea Hill neighborhood, and no impacts would occur from the exchange of properties. L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Section 2.1 of this Expanded Environmental Checklist evaluates impacts to land use patterns and the relationship to adopted plans and policies. HOUSING A. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No housing would be provided. Approval of the proposed rezone and administrative use permit would result in development of a College facility on the site. Revision Date: May 29, 2009 95 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No housing would be eliminated. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. AESTHETICS A. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Buildings would be approximately 36 feet high (eastern building) and 32 feet high (western building). Exterior building materials would include concrete materials, metal wall panels, membrane roofing, green roofs, and standing seam metal roofing at clerestories. B. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The site is currently a park and is generally open in character. It is developed with two ball fields, a playground and tennis courts, a scoreboard and bleachers, and a dug out. Existing vegetation occurs on the southeastern portion of the site, which is heavily vegetated with trees and Oregon blackberry, and on the northwest portion of the site which contains mature trees. The Martin property, located to the north, is developed with a single family residence and several outbuildings, and contains open pasture. The site is visible to passing motorists and pedestrians along SE 320th Street and 124th Ave. SE, and portions of the site are visible from some private residences west and east of the site. Views from the Campus Corner Apartments, located at SE 320th Street and 124th Ave SE, are screened by existing vegetation surrounding the on-site wetland. No territorial views are available from the existing park. Views of the site would change as a result of development. The change would be from an open recreational area to a developed site with buildings. The change would be experienced primarily by passing motorists and pedestrians along SE 320th Street and 124th Ave. SE. Private residences located close to the site on the west, and across the street on the east would also notice a change in views, although much of the change will be screened by planned landscaping. An objective of the landscape plan, shown in Figure 4, is to screen views of the Trades facility from surrounding properties. Based on the landscape plan, existing trees and vegetation in the southeastern and northwestern portions of the site would be retained and enhanced. Additional vegetation would be provided along SE 320th Street, along 124th Ave. SE, along the northern property boundary adjacent to the new park, and within and around the new building parking areas. Dense landscaping would be provided in the western portion of the site, closest to existing residences. Due to the orientation and shape of the proposed building, and depending on viewer orientation, much of the building's bulk would be located on the interior of Revision Date: May 29, 2009 96 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT the site and would be screened from view by existing and planned vegetation. From SE 320th Street, approximately one-third of the building's mass would be oriented to and visible from the street; landscaping would also be provided along this edge. This visibility would establish the college's presence on the street. The buildings would be comparable in height to surrounding residential uses (35 feet), but would be greater in bulk. Similarly, the Trades building would be visible from 124th Ave. SE, most prominently in the area north of the site entry and parking lot. Views south of the entry would be blocked by existing dense vegetation associated with the wetland. The landscape plan identifies additional vegetation on this side of the site, which would partially screen views into the site. In addition, landscaping is also proposed in conjunction with improvements that are planned to 124th Ave. SE, which is a separate project. Figure 5, in Section 1 of the Expanded Environmental Checklist shows the existing view of the site from the private residence closest to the site on the west. As seen in the photo, views of the existing park are currently partially blocked by existing trees. Vegetation would be enhanced in this location to provide additional screening. Figure 6 shows a schematic section view of the proposed acoustical/retaining wall proposed along the western portion of the site to mitigate potential noise impacts. As shown on Figure 7 in Section 1, partial, screened views of the building and the proposed acoustical wall would be likely from the nearest home to the west; proposed landscaping would help screen this view. The building and acoustical wall would be more visible from the area around the Lea Hill Homes Club House and from the trail (Figure 8). Vegetation would be enhanced in the northeastern portion of the site to screen views from residences across 124th Ave. SE (Figure 10). The visual character of the existing campus is established by the presence of large trees along SE 320th Street, which blocks most views into the campus for motorists and pedestrians. Partial views of buildings and parking areas occur through openings in this vegetation. The Trades site would share some of this landscape character of buildings in the trees, particularly along the western side of the site. Buildings will be visible from SE 320th Street and from the site entrance along 124th Ave. SE. Representative views, showing existing landscaping only, are provided in Figures 9 and 10 in Section 1. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The landscape plan included with the application would screen views of the site for adjacent residents. LIGHT AND GLARE 1. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Proposed building materials consist of concrete and metal and are generally non-reflective. Most lighting would be generated by on-site parking areas, and from automobile headlights. 2. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Revision Date: May 29, 2009 97 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT , Glare is not expected to create a safety hazard or interfere with views. Parking lot lighting is being designed to avoid spillage or trespass onto neighboring properties. 3. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Automobile headlights and street lighting are the likely sources of light but are not expected to affect the proposal. 4. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: As noted in the project description, parking lot lighting would be LED fixtures with 100 percent cutoff mounted on 20-foot poles. RECREATION 1. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The proposed site is currently the location of Lea Hill Park, a City park that two ball fields, a play ground and tennis courts. 2. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. The property proposed for rezoning is currently Lea Hill Park and the City has consented to the rezone application. In February, 2010, the City of Auburn and Green River Community College executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding exchange of the Lea Hill Park property, owned by the City, and the adjacent Martin property, owned by the College. According to the terms of the MOU, the College will transfer an interest in the Martin property to the City and fund construction of a new City park on that site, in exchange for obtaining the Lea Hill Park property. Completion of the property exchange is anticipated to occur in 2010, and construction of the new park is expected to occur in 2011, before any site development or building occurs in conjunction with Trades. The City is currently working with the neighborhood to develop design concepts for the new park. According to this schedule, although the park would move to the adjacent site there would be no disruption in park service to the neighborhood. It is noted that the separate and independent proposal to improve 124th Ave SE would construct a stormwater detention pond in the location of the existing Lea Hill Park playground. As identified in the environmental checklist for that proposal, the playground will be replaced in the park on the Martin property. Alternatively, if the City- College land exchange is not concluded and Trades does not go forward, then the playground would be replaced in the existing Lea Hill Park. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: No impacts to recreation would occur. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION 1. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe: Revision Date: May 29, 2009 98 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT There are no places or objects listed on or proposed for national, state or local historic registers on or near the site. 2. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. A report addressing the potential for cultural resources on the site is contained in Appendix F of this Expanded Checklist (Northwest Archaeological Associates, 2010). Research identified ten cultural resource surveys that have been conducted within approximately one mile of the site, and one of these identified cultural resources. Most involved sites on the valley floors of the Green River or Big Soos Creek. The report notes the site is located approximately 1/3 mile from the edge of a terrace over the Green River and Big Soos Creek, and these terraces are considered to be high probability areas for Native American activity. Because of the presence of wetlands on the site and its distance from the terrace, the rezone site is considered to have a "moderate probability" for cultural resources. Resources, if any, would likely be located in draws, adjacent to surface water features such as wetlands, or in less disturbed areas. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: A physical site survey, consisting of visual reconnaissance and shovel probing, would occur prior to building permit application to check for any buried resources. The probing would be focused around the on-site wetlands, where any cultural resources would be most likely to be located. The findings of the survey would determine whether any further mitigation, such as monitoring of construction, would also be necessary. An inadvertent discovery plan would also be prepared. TRANSPORTATION 1. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Please refer to Section 2.3 of the Expanded Environmental Checklist. 2. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Please refer to Section 2.3 of the Expanded Environmental Checklist. 3. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Please refer to Section 2.3 of the Expanded Environmental Checklist. 4. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private): Please refer to Section 2.3 of the Expanded Environmental Checklist. Revision Date: May 29, 2009 99 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 5. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe Please refer to Section 2.3 of the Expanded Environmental Checklist. 6. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Please refer to Section 2.3 of the Expanded Environmental Checklist. 7. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Please refer to Section 2.3 of the Expanded Environmental Checklist. PUBLIC SERVICES 1. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe: If the rezone and administrative use permit are approved, the building constructed on the site would replace an existing complex of buildings on campus which houses the same instructional program. Programs and activities would be the same as now occur. The new building would be larger than the existing Trades facility by approximately 22,000 square feet, and would accommodate an increase of 119 students (FTE) and 4 faculty members. Data on calls for police and fire service generated from the campus was obtained for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 (through June). In this time period, the campus (including Campus Corner Apartments, generated an average of 128 calls per year for police service, and 67 calls per year for fire/emergency medical services. (Fred Creek, personal communication, July 10, 2010). Approximately 18 percent of the police service calls and 15 percent of the fire/EMS calls originated from Campus Corner Apartments. The police service calls generally involved minor incidents such as traffic accidents, parking issues, noise, rowdiness, etc. The great majority of fire service calls were for emergency medical services and in response to smoke alarms. Additional calls for service can be projected based on a ratio of service calls to facility size. Based on the existing size of the GRCC campus (638,000 square feet), service call generation rates are approximately 0.20 police service calls per year per 1,000 square feet, and 0.10 fire service calls per year per 1,000 square feet. The proposed Trades facility represents a net increase of approximately 22,500 square feet of building, relative to the existing Trades facility. Applying this ratio, the new facility would generate an additional 4.5 annual calls for police service, and 2.25 annual calls for fire/EMS. This increase is not considered significant. 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impact on public services, if any: None required. UTILITIES 1. Circle utilities currently available at the site: sewer, water, drainage, electricity, telephone, cable Revision Date: May 29, 2009 100 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 2. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed: ■ Sewer, water, drainage: City of Auburn ■ Electricity & natural gas: Puget Sound Energy ■ Telephone: Qwest ■ Cable: Comcast The proposal is a rezone and administrative use permit, and no construction would result from these approvals. In conjunction with construction, the Trades facility would connect to available city of Auburn water, sewer and drainage systems. Some upgrading or relocation of connecting pipes may be required. Minor amounts of water would also be consumed in connection with construction activities, such as for dust suppression and wheel washing. The Trades proposal would result in an increase in water consumption.. Total water consumption (sewer and water) by the GRCC campus for the past three years has averaged 1,096,200 cubic feet, per year or 8,200,000 gallons per year. (This excludes campus housing and the childcare facility.) The existing campus contains an estimated 554,582 gross square feet of building area, and total water usage, therefore, equates to approximately 14.8 gallons per square feet per year. The Trades program does not consume unusual amount of water and would be consistent with the campus-wide average. The net increase in building area associated with the Trades proposal (22,426 square feet) would increase average water usage by an estimated 331,905 gallons per year, or approximately 4 percent. SIGNATURE I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the information furnished in this Checklist is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am the owner of the premises where the work is to be performed or am acting as the owner's authorized agent. I further agree to hold the City of Auburn harmless as to any claim (including costs, expenses and attorney's fees incurred in the investigation of such claim) which may be made by any person, including the undersigned, and filed against the City of Auburn, but only where such claim arises out of the reliance of the City, including its officers and employees, upon the accuracy of the information provided to the City as part of this application. I further agree that the City of Auburn staff may enter upon the subject property (ies) at any reasonable time to consider the merits of the application, to take photographs and to post public notices. OWNER/AGENT PRINTED NAME OWNER/AGENT SIGNATURE: ~ DATE SUBMITTED: September 9, 2010, Revised January 7, 2011, Revised June 1, 2011 Revision Date: May 29, 2009 101 4. Proposed Mitigation Measures, The following mitigation measures, identified in the Expanded Environmental Checklist, are included in the proposed Trades facility and/or proposed to mitigate identified environmental impacts. Earth The site does not contain geologic hazards and no mitigation would be required. Best management practices for erosion will be employed and include the following: ■ Prepare and implement a temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP). The TESCP may include a combination of interceptor swales, straw bale barriers, silt fences, and straw mulch for temporary protection of exposed soils. All disturbed areas should be finish graded and seeded as soon as practical to reduce the risk of erosion. ■ Schedule grading and construction to minimize soil exposure. ■ Vegetate and mulch denuded soils, and direct runoff away from these areas. ■ Keep runoff velocities low. ■ Trap sediment on site. ■ Inspect and maintain control measures frequently. All paved and landscaped areas would be graded to direct surface drainage away from buildings to catch basins. Water collected in roof downspouts would not be routed to pipe systems and not to footing drain lines. Additional recommendations to manage construction are included in the Geotechnical report and will be implemented. Air Quality Construction of the Trades project will require a Notice of Construction application and a permit from the PSCAA. PSCAA regulations are intended to protect the health of sensitive individuals and neighboring land uses from air pollutants. Emissions subject to PSCAA regulations include painting and machining woodworking equipment, and odors attributable to glues, solvents and paints. PSCAA rules prohibit odors from annoying neighbors. Dust would be controlled through the use of baghouses. Collection hoods on flexible arms would be used to capture welding fumes at the source. Construction contractors will be required to comply with PSCAA regulations which require precautions to avoid dust emissions. The use of on-site engines will also be required to be minimized to the extent practicable, and locating combustion fueled equipment as far as possible from nearby residences. PSCAA regulations also require Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 102 control of odor-bearing contaminants to prevent potential effects to nearby people or property. Other techniques to minimize construction related emissions include avoiding prolonged idling of vehicles and engine powered emissions; scheduling construction deliveries to avoid peak travel times; spraying areas of exposed soils, such as staging areas and construction roadways, with water to reduce dust emissions; wheel washing and covering dusty truck loads; and street cleaning. Water The stormwater system is being designed according to City of Auburn stormwater management standards and requirements. Water quality controls are part of the proposed stormwater management system. The system will control stormwater discharge rates to avoid impacts to receiving waters, including the on-site wetland. Hydroperiod modeling would occur as detailed drainage design occurs, prior to application for a building permit. No downstream impacts are anticipated. Plants & Animals A landscape plan would be implemented. Approximately 39 existing significant trees located in the building footprint would be removed and would be replaced on site. Existing significant trees would be retained on the northern, eastern and western portions of the site. The existing wetlands and wetland buffers would not be disturbed and no mitigation is required. The site does not contain regulated streams or habitat for threatened, endangered or sensitive species of wildlife and no mitigation is required. Energy The building is being designed to meet LEED Silver standards and would incorporate energy efficiency measures. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. Environmental Health The Trades building will be sprinklered, and fire extinguishers will be located in all program areas. Work areas would include systems (e.g., bag houses) to capture, contain and vent fumes and odors. Flammable materials would be stored in marked storage cabinets in program areas. Small amounts of accumulated wastes would be contained in storage rooms or marked cabinets. Fenced, locked and screened storage areas would be provided outside the buildings for welding gas bottles (CO, argon, oxygen), antifreeze and oil. If any underground storage tanks are discovered during excavation, they would be removed, and remediated if necessary, pursuant to state requirements. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 103 Noise The site is being designed to contain noise within the site to the extent practical and to minimize off-site noise. Noise walls would be constructed along the western and northern portions of the site to mitigate impacts to adjacent residents, the daycare facility, and users of the new park. Additional construction techniques and building design parameters are identified in the Expanded Environmental Checklist and will be implemented to mitigate noise impacts. With implementation of these measures, the site would meet all applicable noise standards. Land Use No adverse impacts have been identified and no mitigation is required. Housing No adverse impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. Aesthetics, Light & Glare The landscape plan included with the application would screen views of the site for adjacent residents. Outdoor storage containers would be enclosed and screened from view. Proposed parking lot lighting would be LED fixtures with 100 percent cutoff mounted on 20-foot poles. Recreation Pursuant to a City/College Memorandum of Understanding, the College would fund construction of a new City park on the site to the north. The new park would be operational before construction of the Trades building commences. There would be no adverse impact to recreational facilities. Cultural Resources A physical site survey, consisting of visual reconnaissance and shovel probing, would occur prior to building permit application to check for any buried archaeological resources. The probing would be focused around the on-site wetlands, where any cultural resources would be most likely to be located. The findings of the survey would determine whether any further mitigation, such as monitoring of construction, would also be necessary. An inadvertent discovery plan would also be prepared. Transportation The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce or eliminate project impacts. ■ Construct site access, frontage, and arterial widening improvements along 124`h Avenue SE from SE 3201h Street to SE 316th Street. This mitigation measure would complete portions of City TIP Projects No. 39, 40 and 42. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 104 ■ Construct frontage improvements along SE 320th Street and identify a reserve area for potential future installation of a transit zone on the northeast corner of intersection of 124th Ave. SE and SE 320th Street. ■ Install a mid-block crossing treatment along SE 320th Street with pedestrian activated warning system. ■ Construct an internal trail system between site frontage, around the buildings, and to the future City Park to the north of the site. ■ The applicant will pay a transportation impact fee pursuant to City of Auburn development regulations. The applicant will also be eligible for a credit in recognition of dedication of land and construction of improvements in excess of project requirements. The actual impact fee and credit evaluation would be performed at the time of building permit issuance, based on the fee schedule and regulations in effect at that time. ■ Planned transportation improvements along the 124th Avenue SE corridor are not within the City's Traffic Impact Fee program. To mitigate project impacts at those intersections that would not meet adopted LOS standards with or without the Trades project, a proportional share contribution is proposed. The Trades project proportional share of mitigation is defined as its percentage contribution to intersection entering traffic or added traffic along a roadway segment, which translates to its percentage of intersection improvement costs. Note that some TIP projects identified for the SE 320th Street and 124th Ave. SE corridors (TIP # 39 and TIP #42) are not related to the Trades project and are not proposed as mitigation. Proportional share estimates include (per Appendix B): Intersection #1-124th Avenue SE / SE 312th Street - City TIP Project #41: Improvement Needed to Meet Adopted LOS Standard: Install an additional westbound left turning lane and a southbound receiving lane on SE 124th Avenue SE as identified in the TIP Project #41. Note: Contribution toward the southbound receiving lane is identified below. Proportional Share Calculation at Intersection: 2015 Totaling Entering Volumes of 1,998, of which, 23 trips are new Project Trips. Proportional share is therefore 1.2 percent. Intersection #2 - 124th Avenue SE / SE 314th Street and Intersection #3 - 124th Avenue SE / SE 316th Street - TIP Project #40: Improvement Needed to Meet Adopted LOS Standard: Continuation of the existing roadway section recently. constructed by GRCC (i.e., two southbound through lanes, a center turning lane, and a northbound through lane) as identified by the City TIP #40 from just south of SE 316th Street to SE 312th Street would address existing level of service deficiencies at both intersection locations. GRCC recently completed a portion of the improvements identified in TIP #40 through widening, frontage and other enhancements constructed along 124th Avenue SE. The proportional share contribution toward this project identified for Intersection #1 (1.2 percent) would also satisfy the projects proportional cost for the southbound receiving lane at Intersection # 1. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 105 At intersection #2 - 124th Avenue SE / SE 314th Street, the City could implement alternative strategies at this location to address existing level of service deficiencies, including turning movement restrictions, modifying the methodology for unsignalized level of service analysis to include both stop and yield controlled movements in the delay calculation, or modifying the LOS standard for this intersection or corridor. Proportional Share Calculation Along 124`h Avenue SE Roadway Segment: 2015 Totaling Directional Volumes on 124`h Avenue SE of 1,368, of which 23 trips are new Project Trips. Proportional share is therefore 1.7 percent. ■ Develop and implement a Parking Management Program for facilities at the Trades Replacement Complex. This Program would assign parking for staff and students associated with the Trades program within the main parking lot constructed at the site, identify monitoring efforts, and other program elements. The program would be submitted at the time of building permit application. Public Services No significant impacts would occur to police service, fire service, or other city services and no mitigation measures are required. Utilities No significant impacts to utilities are anticipated. Some upgrading or relocation of connecting utility pipes may be required. Green River Community College - Trades Expanded Environmental Checklist 106 Green River Community College Trades Project . 3 x ,x Y c. , r n r • pPAe s ; R r - -Subie ` - Proper . of 3 arH,sr- iY VA, 1AW 4", _ b s IVA t 7 ,r r 111 ~ 4 r _l . ~ , u x+m~ d r~ ~~a y « r`P 1" r r ~If C lr,, « fir. r .js . r, a ~u ae `-Ali, r 11 e lie' u ~ Printed Date:7/8/2011 :=p El Map Created by City of Auburn eG15 L3 King County Address Grid Parcels Information shown is for general reference w *,r purposes only and does not necessarily Buildings represent exact geographic or cartographic s 2007 data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes no 0 Image warranty as to its accuracy. Red:Band_1 OR 577 ® Green:Band_2 a' n e 'v t E »r(,1 i' •~L ICJ. J d~ Report - Geotechnicei Engineering Services Proposed Trades Building Green River Community College N Auburn, Washington for Green River COMMUni C MeCF - 1, ; § ( 1~ = Id. June 3, 2010 2 01 yt v d d - _ - ,r ~s ? n h f~ % 71' aO O x@[~ ~ ^-cam N v ~ ~ u~ t 0 C - - - . f /l a'l ~'o 1• ~ "tom q , , a f t Report Geotechnical Engineering Services Proposed Trades Building Green River Community College Auburn, Washington for Green River Community College June 3, 2010 " r GMENGINEERS~ 2924 Colby Avenue Everett, Washington 98201, 425.252.4565 l r t Report Geotechnical Engineering Services Proposed Trades Building Green River Community College Auburn, Washington File No. 1406-009-00 June 3, 2010 Prepared for: Green River Community College 12401 SE 320th Street Auburn, Washington 98092-3699 Attn: Tom Weisweaver Prepared by: GeoEngineers, Inc. 2924 Colby Avenue Everett, Washington 98201 425.252.4565 i~f--Nancy L. Tochko, PE ~Ofc A y Senior Geotechnical Engineer N O Ile K z 32907 q Robert C. Metcalfe, PE, LEG Associate RCM:NLT:ta https://projects.gecengineers.com/sites/0140600900/Draft/TradesBuilding Report_140600900.docx Disclaimer. Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Copyright© 2010 by GeoEngineers, Inc. All rights reserved. GWENGINEERS~ Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................1 General ...................................................................................................................................................1 Project Description .................................................................................................................................1 Purpose And Scope ................................................................................................................................1 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ..................................................................................1 Field Investigation ..................................................................................................................................1 Laboratory Testing 2 SITE CONDITIONS ..........................................................................................................................................2 Regional Geology 2 Surface Conditions .................................................................................................................................2 Subsurface Soil Conditions ...................................................................................................................3 Soil Conditions .................................................................................................................................3 Groundwater Conditions .................................................................................................................3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................4 Earthquake Engineering ......••••4 Seismicity 4 Ground Shaking 4 2009 IBC Seismic Design Information ...........................................................................................4 Liquefaction Potential .....................................................................................................................4 Ground Rupture ...............................................................................................................................5 Landslides .......................................................................................................................................5 Foundations ...........................................................................................................................................5 General 5 Foundation Design ..........................................................................................................................5 Foundation Settlement ...................................................................................................................6 Lateral Resistance ..........................................................................................................................7 Footing Drains 7 Slab-On-Grade Floors .............................................................................................................................7 Subgrade Preparation .....................................................................................................................7 Design Parameters ..........................................................................................................................8 Earthwork ...............................................................................................................................................8 General 8 Clearing and Site Preparation ........................................................................................................9 Subgrade Preparation 9 Structural Fill .................................................................................................................................10 Utility Trenches ..............................................................................................................................13 Cut and Fill Slopes ...............................................................................................................................13 General ..........................................................................................................................................13 Temporary Cut Slopes ...................................................................................................................13 Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes .....................................................................................................14 June 3, 2010 Page i G EO E N G I N E ER$ File No. 1406.009.00 i Table of Contents (Continued) Sedimentation and Erosion Control ....................................................................................................14 Below-Grade Walls ...............................................................................................................................14 Design Parameters .......................................................................................................................14 Wall Drainage ................................................................................................................................15 Drainage Considerations .....................................................................................................................16 Pavement Recommendations .............................................................................................................16 Subgrade Preparation ...................................................................................................................16 New Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Pavement ........................................................................................16 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement .........................................................................................16 Asphalt-Treated Base ....................................................................................................................17 Infiltration .............................................................................................................................................17 Recommended Design Infiltration Rates .....................................................................................18 Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services .............................................................................19 LIMITATIONS ...............................................................................................................................................19 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map . . . Figure 2. Site Plan Figure 3. Wall Drainage and Backfill Figure 4. Compaction Criteria for Trench Backfill Figure 5. Recommended Surcharge Pressures APPENDICES Appendix A. Field Explorations Figure A-1 - Key to Exploration Logs Figure A-2 through A-11 - Logs of Borings Appendix B. Laboratory Testing Figure B-1 through B-2 - Sieve Analysis Results Appendix C. Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use Page ii June 3, 2010 Geo Engineers, Inc, File No. 1406-009-00 PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Auburn, Washington EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report contains the results of our geotechnical engineering services for use in the design of the proposed Trades Building at Green River Community College. The project consists of constructing two new one-story buildings (west and south buildings) and adjacent parking at the existing Lea Hill Park, located north of the main campus on the north side of SE 3201h Street and west of 124th Avenue Southeast. The buildings (approximately 65,000 square feet) will be constructed with the finish floor at Elevation 424 feet with no below-grade levels. Design grades will necessitate cuts up to 10 feet in height along portions of the west side and fills up to 6 feet in height in the southeast area. A summary of primary geotechnical considerations for site development and design of the proposed buildings is provided below. This summary is presented for introductory purposes only and should be used in conjunction with the complete recommendations presented in this report. Subsurface Conditions The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by drilling ten borings in the area of the proposed building and adjacent parking. The near-surface soils generally consist of sod and topsoil underlain by undocumented fill associated with previous grading activities that extends 11/2 to 5 feet below the existing ground surface in some areas. In general, thicker fill was observed across the eastern portion of the site. The topsoil and/or fill is underlain by ablation till consisting of loose _ to medium dense silty sand and silty sandy gravel, which is in turn underlain by dense to very dense lodgement till. Removal of topsoil and old fill soils from below the foundation areas of the building should be planned as part of the project. Existing fill may remain under slab areas provided the top 2 feet of the fill can be removed and recompacted as recommended in this report. Perched groundwater was observed in about half of the borings typically at depths of 6 to 8 feet below the ground surface. We anticipate that shallow groundwater seepage will be present as a perched layer on the dense to very dense glacial soil during the wet winter and spring months. Where encountered, we expect that seepage can be handled by digging interceptor trenches in the excavations and pumping from sumps. The native glacial deposits and fill soils encountered at the site are generally of low corrosivity based on our experience in the Puget Sound area. On-Site Soils The native glacial till is expected to be suitable for use as structural fill only during the dry summer months provided that the soil is properly moisture conditioned. We do not recommend using the glacial till soils during wet weather or the wet season (October through May). Imported gravel borrow should be planned for use as structural fill under the building floor slab and foundations. Suitable on-site glacial till may be used as utility trench backfill in areas only requiring 90 percent compaction and imported gravel borrow should be used as trench backfill where 95 percent compaction is required (unless the contractor can achieve compaction using on-site soils). GEOENGINEERS June 3, 2010 Page ES-1 File No. Taos-oos-oo PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Auburn, Washington Foundation Design The proposed building may be supported on shallow spread foundations bearing on undisturbed medium dense to very dense glacial soils or on structural fill placed over these soils. Foundation design may be based on an allowable bearing value of: ■I 8,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for footings supported directly on undisturbed dense to very dense native glacial lodgement till, or ■ 3,000 psf for footings supported on medium dense to dense native ablation till, or * 3,000 psf for footings supported on properly placed and compacted structural fill overlying medium dense to very dense native ablation or lodgement till. These allowable bearing pressures apply to the total dead and long-term live loads and may be increased up to one-third for short-term live loads such as wind or seismic forces. Lateral foundation loads may be resisted by passive resistance on the sides of the footings and by friction on the base of the footings. For footings supported and surrounded by either dense native soils or compacted structural fill, a coefficient of friction of 0.35 and a passive resistance of 350 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) may be used. Footing drains should be incorporated in the design of the building. Seismic Design In accordance with the 2009 International Building Code (IBC), the site is classified as Site Class C. Floor Slabs Concrete slabs-on-grade should be supported on a 6-inch-thick capillary break layer. Retaining Walls Drainage will be required behind below grade walls. For subgrade walls with level backfill and constructed either neat against the medium dense to dense native soils, or backfilled with compacted structural fill, we recommend the following equivalent fluid weights: ® Allowable passive pressure - 350 pcf ® Active pressure - 35 pcf ■ At-rest pressure - 55 pcf New HMA Pavements New hot mix asphalt (HMA) pavement sections around the building should consist of at least 2 inches HMA over 4 inches of base course in car parking areas and 3 inches HMA over 6 inches of base course in areas exposed to truck traffic or heavy traffic volumes. Page ES-2 June 3, 2010 GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 1400 009-00 PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Auburn, Washington INTRODUCTION General This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the proposed Trades Building project at Green River Community College (GRCC) in Auburn, Washington. The location of the site and general configuration of the proposed Trades Building project are shown in the Vicinity Map and Site Plan, Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Project Description We understand that GRCC is planning to build a new Trades Complex consisting of two new one-story buildings (west and south buildings) at the location of the existing ball fields at Lea Hill Park, which is located across SE 320th Street north of the main campus. The proposed buildings will total about 65,000 square feet and will likely consist of steel-frame and masonry construction with concrete slab-on-grade floors; the finish floor is currently planned to be at Elevation 424 feet. The design grades will require cuts on the order of 5 to 10 feet in height along a portion of the west access driveway/parking area, and fill up to approximately 6 feet in height along.the edge of the south building. At-grade parking will be constructed on the east and west sides of the building with access driveways off of 124th Avenue NE on the east side and 122nd Avenue SE in the southwest area of the site. A detention/infiltration stormwater system is planned under the east parking areas. We anticipate that landscape and hardscape areas will also be constructed around the complex. Purpose And Scope The purpose of our services is to evaluate soil and groundwater conditions as a basis for developing design criteria for the geotechnical aspects of the proposed Trades Building project. Field explorations and laboratory testing were performed to identify and evaluate subsurface conditions at the site in order to develop engineering recommendations for use in design of the project. Our services were performed in general accordance with our proposal dated January 22, 2010. Written authorization to proceed with our services was provided by the State of Washington Department of General Administration on February 19, 2010. Subsequent to completing our fieldwork, the footprints of the proposed buildings were modified. Figure 2 illustrates the current building configurations. FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Field Investigation Subsurface soil and groundwater conditions were evaluated by drilling ten borings (B-1 through B-10) to depths ranging from 9 to 181/2 feet below the ground surface in the vicinity of the proposed buildings and planned parking areas, as shown in Figure 2. Borings B-1 through B-6 were drilled in the vicinity of the buildings, and borings B-7, B-8 and B-10 were drilled in the vicinity of the proposed parking areas. Boring B-9 was drilled near the entrance area in the vicinity of a June3 GEOENGINEERS~ ,2010 Pagel File rao. Taos-oos-oo PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Auburn, Washington proposed detention pond being designed as a part of the 124th Avenue SE improvement project. Details of the subsurface explorations, including logs of the borings, are included in Appendix A. Laboratory Testing Soil samples obtained from the explorations were transported to our laboratory and examined to confirm or modify field classifications, as well as to evaluate engineering and index properties of the soil. Representative samples were selected for laboratory testing consisting of moisture content determinations, percent fines content, and sieve analyses. The tests were performed in general accordance with test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other applicable procedures. Appendix B includes a brief discussion of the laboratory tests and test results. SITE CONDITIONS Regional Geology Geologic information for the campus area indicates that the native surficial soils at the site are composed of ground moraine deposits primarily consisting of thin ablation glacial till deposits over lodgement glacial till deposits. Ablation till is generally deposited as the glacier melts and recedes, while-lodgement till is deposited under the glacier and is compacted by the pressure of the overlying glacial ice. Lodgement till commonly consists of a very compact, coherent, unsorted, non-stratified mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles and boulders. Lodgement till commonly appears gray or blue on a fresh surface, while weathered glacial till may be brown to yellow in color. Ablation till is typically much less compact and coherent than the underlying lodgement till. Ablation till is generally 2 to 10 feet thick, while the underlying lodgement till in the area is typically 5 to 30 feet thick. Geologic information was obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Map of the Auburn Quadrangle, King and Pierce Counties, Washington, by D. R. Mullineaux, and dated 1965. Surface Conditions The main GRCC campus lies on a bluff above the Green River approximately two miles northeast of downtown Auburn. The proposed Trades buildings will be located north of the main campus within the existing Lea Hill Park. The site is bounded by SE 320th Street to the south and 124th Avenue SE to the east. The existing park consists of two fenced in ball fields planted with sod across the west and central portion of the park, and tennis courts and a playground on the northeast portion. A heavily wooded area is located in the southeast corner of the site and is currently designated as a wetland area. An existing gravel parking area is located west of the ball fields in the southwest corner and is generally 6 to 8 feet higher than the park with an approximate 2H:1V (horizontal:vertical) slope down to the ball fields. North of this parking area, the western edge of the site consists of a moderate slope about 8 feet in height. A small gravel parking area exists south of the playground with a gated gravel access road to the ball fields from 124th Avenue SE. The existing ground surface at the site gently slopes down to the east except for the slope along the western edge of the site. Site grades range from Elevation 434 at the southwest parking area to Elevation 426 to 422 across the ball fields to Elevation 412 at the southeast corner at the outlet of the wetland. Page 2 June 3, 2010 GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 1406-009-00 1 PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Auburn, Washington Subsurface Soil Conditions Based on the soil conditions encountered in the borings, the site is generally underlain by thin fill soils overlying medium dense ablation till. Dense to very dense lodgement till deposits exist at depth below the ablation till. The soil units observed in the borings are described below. Soil Conditions ■ Crushed Rock. Approximately 2 inches of 5/8-inch-minus crushed rock was observed at the surface in boring B-10 situated in the southwest parking area. ■ Sod/Topsoil. Approximately 6 to 8 inches of sod and topsoil was observed in all of the borings except boring B-10. ® Fill. Variable thicknesses of fill were encountered in the borings. Borings B-1 through B-4 and boring B-10, all located on the western half of the park, encountered 0 to 2 feet of fill. Borings B-5 through B-9 encountered 2 to approximately 6 feet of fill. In many of the borings, the characteristics of the fill is similar to that of ablation till described below, making it difficult to differentiate fill from the native ablation till deposits. The fill typically consists of loose to medium dense silty fine to medium sand and gravel. Deeper fill soils associated with existing utilities should be anticipated. • Ablation Till. Ablation till generally consisting of loose to medium dense silty fine to medium sand with variable gravel and loose to medium dense sandy gravel with varying amounts of silt was observed in all the borings. Ablation till often contains cobbles and occasional boulders. A large cobble or boulder was encountered in boring B-5 at a depth of 8 feet. The ablation till is less dense than the underlying weathered lodgement till. The ablation till appeared to range from about 2 to 6-feet thick and extended to depths ranging from about 5 to 10 feet below the ground surface. The depth of the ablation till extended deeper than the depth explored in boring B-8. The ablation till was difficult to distinguish from the fill soils in several borings due to possible regarding during previous site development. Therefore, the contact between the ablation till and the overlying fill soils should be considered approximate. ■ Lodgement Till. Lodgement till was encountered at depth in all the borings with the exception of boring B-8. The lodgement till observed generally consists of dense to very dense silty fine to medium sand with gravel and cobbles. Lodgement till contains occasional cobbles and boulders; a large cobble or boulder was encountered at the bottom of boring B-2. Weathered lodgement till is generally brown to brown-gray in color and medium dense to very dense. Relatively unweathered lodgement till is generally gray and very dense. The contact between the weathered and unweathered till soils is gradational. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was observed 6 to 8 feet below the ground surface in borings B-1 and B-5 through B-9, and appears perched over the denser lodgement till deposits. Groundwater was not observed in borings B-2 through B-4 and B-10 at the time of drilling. We expect that perched groundwater over the dense to very dense till will exist in response to seasonal changes in precipitation. The dense to very dense till is relatively impermeable and water that infiltrates through the ground surface typically flows down gradient over the dense till surface. Localized groundwater zones may also exist in more permeable layers within the till soils. GEOENGINEERS June 3, 2010 Page 3 File No. 1406-009-00 PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Aubum, Washington CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Earthquake Engineering Seismicity The Puget Sound area is a seismically active region and has experienced thousands of earthquakes in historical time. Seismicity in this region is attributed primarily to the interaction between the Pacific, Juan de Fuca and North American plates. The Juan de Fuca plate is subducting beneath the North American Plate. Each year 1,000 to 2,000 earthquakes occur in Oregon and Washington. However, few of these are typically felt because the majority of the earthquakes are relatively minor, smaller than Richter magnitude 3. Potential seismic hazards from earthquakes include ground shaking, liquefaction, ground rupture from lateral spreading and surface fault rupture, and landslides. Our opinions regarding the likelihood of these seismic hazards occurring at the site are presented below. These opinions are based on the seismicity criteria recommended in the 2009 edition of the International Building Code (IBC). Ground Shaking There is a risk of earthquake induced ground shaking at the site, as with all sites in the Puget Sound region, and the intensity of the ground shaking could be severe. The severity of ground shaking will be mostly a function of the earthquake magnitude and proximity to the site. In our opinion, strong ground shaking should be considered in the design of the planned structures at this site. We recommend that the seismic ground shaking at the site be evaluated in accordance with - the 2009 IBC. 2009 IBC Seismic Design Information We recommend the 2009 International Building Code (IBC) parameters for Site Class, short period spectral response acceleration (Ss), 1-second period spectral response acceleration (S1), and Seismic Coefficients FA and Fv presented in Table 1. TABLE 1. 2009 IBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 2009 IBC Parameter Recommended Value Site Class C Short Period Spectral Response Acceleration, Ss (percent g) 121 1-Second Period Spectral Response Acceleration, S, (percent g) 41 Seismic Coefficient, F. 1.0 Seismic Coefficient, Fv 1.39 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is a phenomenon where soils experience a rapid loss of internal strength as a consequence of strong ground shaking. Ground settlement, lateral spreading and/or sand boils may result from soil liquefaction. Structures supported on liquefied soils could suffer foundation settlement or lateral movement that could be severely damaging to structures. Page 4 June 3, 2010 GeoEngineers, Inc. Fife No. 1406-009-00 PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Auburn, Washington Conditions favorable to liquefaction occur in loose to medium dense, clean to moderately silty sand, which is below the groundwater level. Based on our evaluation of the subsurface conditions observed in the explorations completed at the site, it is our opinion that potentially liquefiable soils are not present below the site. Ground Rupture Ground rupture from lateral spreading is associated with liquefaction. Lateral spreading involves lateral displacements of large volumes of liquefied soil, and can occur on near-level ground as blocks of surface soils displace relative to adjacent blocks. In our opinion, ground rupture resulting from lateral spreading at the site is unlikely because potentially liquefiable soils are not present at the site as discussed above. Because of the thickness of the Quaternary sediments below the site, which are commonly more than 1,000 feet thick, the potential for surface fault rupture is considered remote. Landslides Because the site is nearly flat with only moderate slopes, in our opinion the risk of landsliding as a result of strong ground shaking is low at this site. Foundations General We recommend that the proposed buildings be supported on shallow spread footings founded on either (1) dense to very dense lodgement till; (2) medium dense to dense ablation native till; or (3) properly compacted structural fill. If structural fill is used to support foundations, then the zone of structural fill should extend beyond the faces of the footing a distance at least equal to the thickness of the structural fill. At this time, we anticipate that the foundations will be placed below existing grades, with stem walls extending up from the foundation to retain fill placed to support the on-grade slabs where the existing grades are below the design slab subgrade. Foundation Design For shallow foundation support, we recommend widths of at least 18 and 24 inches, respectively, for continuous wall and isolated column footings supporting the proposed building. Footings supported on medium dense native ablation till or on structural fill compacted to at least 95 percent MDD and overlying medium dense to dense native till may be proportioned for an allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 psf. An allowable bearing value of 8,000 psf may be used for design of footings supported on dense to very dense lodgement till. These allowable bearing pressures apply to the total dead and long-term live loads and may be increased up to one-third for short-term live loads such as wind or seismic forces. Table 2 summaries the minimum embedment depth/elevation for 3,000 psf and 8,000 psf bearing values. Excavations needed to achieve 3,000 psf bearing capacity will be at least 2 to 3 feet deep in most areas, either to expose suitable native soils, or to remove existing fill prior to placing structural fill, depending in part on the final design elevation of the footings. To achieve 8,000 psf bearing capacity, the footing excavations will be on the order of 5 to 7 feet deep, with the exception of the eastern portion of the building where the excavations would be deeper. If existing fill, June 3, 2010 Page 5 GEOENGI NEERS File No, 1406-009-00 PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Mum, Washington ' ablation till, or unsuitable native soil is observed at the foundation bearing elevation for footings designed for 8,000 psf bearing pressure, we recommend that the contractor remove the material and backfill the excavation with lean concrete or control density fill (CDF) having a design strength of at least 200 pounds per square inch (psi). TABLE 2. MINIMUM FOUNDATION EMBEDMENT FOR BEARING SOIL 3,000 psf Bearing S0112 8,000 psf Bearing Soil Boring Approximate Approximate Approximate Depth Approximate Number Depth% (feet) Elevation (feet) (feet) Elevation (feet) B-1 2 420 6 416 B-2 1 423 6 418 B-3 4 420 6 418 B-4 2 420 5 417 B-5 7 414 10 411 B-6 6 415 10 411 B-7 4 418 6 416 B-8 3 418 N ote3 N ote3 Notes: 1 Depth below existing ground surface. z Foundations may be supported on structural fill at higher elevations. 3 Dense lodgement till not encountered in boring B-8. Where existing fill is exposed at the foundation subgrade, we recommend overexcavating the existing fill from below proposed foundations to expose native medium dense to very dense soil. The overexcavation should extend beyond the footing perimeter a horizontal distance equal to the depth of the excavation. Footing excavations should be performed using a smooth-edged bucket to limit bearing surface disturbance. Loose or disturbed materials in footing excavations should be removed. The design frost depth for the Puget Sound area is 12 inches, therefore, we recommend that exterior footings for structures be founded at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent finished grade. Interior footings should be founded at least 12 inches below bottom of slab or adjacent finished grade. We recommend that all utility trenches crossing under building foundations designed for 8,000 psf bearing pressure be backfilled with CDF within a 1H:1V (horizontal:vertical) influence line projected down from the edges of the foundations. Foundation Settlement We estimate that the postconstruction settlement of footings founded as recommended above will be less than 3/4-inch. Differential settlement between comparably loaded column footings or along a 25-foot section of continuous wall footing should be less than 1/2-inch. We expect most of the footing settlements will occur as loads are applied. Loose or disturbed soils, old fill, topsoil or lacustrine deposits not removed from below the footing excavations prior to placing concrete will Page 6 June 3, 2010 GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 1400-009-00 PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Auburn, Washington result in additional settlement. We recommend that the footing excavations be cut using a smooth edged bucket to reduce the amount of disturbed soil exposed at the subgrade. Immediately prior to placing concrete, all debris and soil slough that accumulated in the footings during forming and steel placement must be removed. Debris or loose soils not removed from the footing excavations will result in increased settlement. If wet weather construction is planned, we recommend that all footing subgrades be protected using a lean concrete mud mat. The mud mat should be placed the same day that the footing subgrade is excavated and approved for foundation support. We recommend that all footing excavations be evaluated by a representative of our firm immediately before any structural fill, mud mat, steel, or concrete is placed, to evaluate if the work is being completed in accordance with our recommendations and that subsurface conditions are as expected. Lateral Resistance Lateral loads may be resisted by a combination of friction between the footing and the supporting soil, and by the passive lateral resistance of the soil surrounding the embedded portions of the footings. For shallow foundations constructed as recommended above, the allowable frictional resistance may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.35 applied to the vertical dead load. The allowable passive resistance on the sides of the footings may be computed using an _ equivalent fluid density of 350 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) if the footings are surrounded by medium dense to very dense native soil or structural fill. The structural fill should extend out from the face of the foundation element for a distance at least equal to two times the depth of the element and be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). The above values include a factor of safety of about 1.5. Footing Drains We recommend that perimeter footing drains be installed around the buildings. The perimeter drains should be installed at the base of the exterior footings as shown on Figure 3. The perimeter drains should be provided with cleanouts and should consist of at least 4-inch-diameter perforated pipe placed on a 3 inch bed of, and surrounded by, 6 inches of drainage material enclosed in a non-woven geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N (or approved equivalent) to prevent fine soil from migrating into the drain material. We recommend against using flexible tubing for footing drainpipes. The perimeter drains should be sloped to drain by gravity, if practicable, to a suitable discharge point, preferably a storm drain. We recommend that the cleanouts be covered, and be placed in flush mounted utility boxes. Water collected in roof downspout lines must not be routed to the footing drain lines. Slab-On-Grade Floors Subgrade Preparation We recommend that slab-on-grade floors be supported on medium dense to very dense native soil or on at least 2 feet of properly compacted structural fill. Topsoil, ablation till and fill that contains significant organic matter and roots under the planned floor slabs should be removed and be tune 3, 2010 Page 7 G EO E N G I N E File No. 1406-009-00 PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Auburn, Washington replaced with properly compacted structural fill as described in the Earthwork section of this report. Existing soils should be removed to a depth of 1.5 feet below the capillary break layer and be replaced with structural fill compacted to at least 95 percent MDD. The exposed floor slab excavation should be evaluated by proof-rolling with heavy, rubber-tired construction equipment during dry weather and if access for this equipment is practical. Probing should be used to evaluate the subgrade during periods of wet weather or if access is not feasible for heavy rubber-tired equipment. The exposed soil should be firm and unyielding, and without significant groundwater. Disturbed areas should be recompacted if possible or removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. Existing trench backfill and utilities should be removed from below the building footprint and be replaced with structural fill. Design Parameters We recommend that slab-on-grade floors be supported on a gravel layer to provide uniform support and drainage, and to act as a capillary break. This is especially important since zones of groundwater seepage may be present below the planned floor slab level in more permeable layers within the native soil or perched above the very dense lodgement till. If zones of significant seepage are observed during construction, then additional drainage protection such as a system of perforated drainpipes located below the floor slab within the capillary break material may be necessary. The gravel layer below slabs-on-grade should consist of 6 inches of clean crushed gravel with a maximum particle size of 1V2 inches and negligible sand or silt, such as WSDOT 9-03.1(4)C Grading No. 57. The gravel layer should be placed directly over the properly prepared subgrade. For slabs designed as a beam on an elastic foundation, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pci may be used for subgrade soils prepared as recommended above. If prevention of moisture migration through the slab is essential, a vapor retarder such as heavy plastic sheeting should be installed between the slab and the gravel layer. This will be desirable where the slabs will be surfaced with tile or will be carpeted. We recommend that the vapor barrier be constructed in accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI 302.11R) and that the plastic sheet be placed over the capillary break layer. The contractor should be made responsible for maintaining the integrity of the vapor barrier during construction. It may also be prudent to apply a sealer to the slab to further retard the migration of moisture through the floor. Earthwork General Based on the subsurface soil conditions encountered in the explorations, we expect that the soils at the site may be excavated using conventional construction equipment. Very dense lodgement till in the deeper cuts may require a large, heavy-duty excavator to accomplish the excavations. Glacial till deposits in the area commonly contain cobbles and boulders, so oversize materials should be anticipated during excavation. The contractor should be prepared to deal with cobbles and boulders, if encountered. The existing fill and glacial till soils at the site contain sufficient fines to be highly moisture-sensitive and susceptible to disturbance, especially when wet. Ideally, earthwork should be undertaken during extended periods of dry weather when the subgrade soils will be less susceptible to Page 8 June 3, 2010 GeoEngineers, Ina. File No. 1406-009-00 PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Auburn, Washington disturbance and provide better support for construction equipment. Dry weather construction will help reduce earthwork costs and increase the potential for using the native soils as structural fill. The existing fill and glacial till soils will be susceptible to rutting in wet weather and pumping and rutting of the exposed soils under equipment loads may occur. Therefore, the surficial native soils should be protected during construction with a wearing surface material, such as crushed rock. We recommend that a representative from our firm be present during proofrolling and/or probing of the exposed subgrade soils in building and pavement areas and during placement of structural fill as described below. Our representative will evaluate the adequacy of the subgrade and identify areas needing further work; perform in-place moisture-density tests in the fill to determine if the compaction specifications are being met; and advise on any modifications to procedure which might be appropriate for the prevailing conditions. Clearing and Site Preparation Areas to be developed or graded should be cleared of surface and subsurface deleterious matter including any sod, debris, brush, trees, and associated stumps and roots. Graded areas should be stripped of organic soils. Based on our explorations and site observations, we estimate that stripping depths at the site will typically be on the order of 6 to 12 inches to remove the topsoil and upper native or fill soils with organic matter. Construction of the proposed buildings will require the demolition and removal of some existing hardscape, utilities, and other appurtenant structures. All existing foundations, concrete, asphalt, and other debris should be excavated and removed from the site. All existing utilities should be removed from the proposed building footprint. All excavations which extend below slab or foundation subgrades should be backfilled with structural fill. We recommend the topsoil and subsurface deleterious matter be removed and replaced with properly compacted structural fill in the proposed building footprints and within 2 feet of pavement subgrades. The excavation to remove this soil should extend horizontally beyond the building perimeters and edges of pavement for a distance equal to the excavation depths. The sod and topsoil can be stockpiled and processed for landscaping purposes to revegetate disturbed areas following completion of grading. If spread out to revegetate disturbed areas, the organic strippings should be placed in a layer less that 1 foot thick, should not be placed on slopes greater than 3H:1V (horizontal:vertical) and should be track-walked to a uniformly compacted condition. Materials that cannot be used for landscaping or revegetation of disturbed areas should be removed from the project site. Subgrade Preparation Preparation of footing subgrades and slab-on-grade subgrade areas should follow the recommendations provided previously in this report. All topsoil, unsuitable existing fill and organic soils should be removed from below the building footprint. Prior to placing new fills, pavement base course materials or structural fill below on-grade floor slabs, all subgrade areas should be evaluated by proofrolling to locate any soft or pumping soils. Proof rolling can be completed using a piece of heavy tire-mounted equipment such as a loaded dump truck. During wet weather, the exposed subgrade areas should be probed (instead of proofrolling) to evaluate the presence and June 3, 2010 Page 9 G NG I N EE R5 file No, 1306-009-00 PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Auburn, Washington determine the extent of soft soils. If soft or pumping soils are observed they should be removed and replaced with structural fill. If deep pockets of soft or pumping soils are encountered in areas to be developed outside the building areas, it may be possible to limit the depth of overexcavation by placing a woven geotextile separator such as Mirafi 50OX (or approved equivalent) on the overexcavated subgrade prior to placing structural fill. The geotextile will provide additional support by bridging over the soft material and will help reduce fines contamination into the structural fill. We anticipate that no more than 2 feet of structural fill placed over a geotextile will be needed to support pavement/ ha rdsca pe areas over soft subgrade conditions. After completing the proofrolling, the subgrade areas should be recompacted to a firm and unyielding condition, if possible. The degree of compaction that can be achieved will depend on when the construction is performed. If the work is performed during dry weather conditions, we recommend that all subgrade areas be recompacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) in accordance with the ASTM D 1557 test procedure. If the work is performed during wet weather conditions, it may not be possible to recompact the subgrade to 95 percent of MDD. In this case, we recommend that the subgrade be compacted to the extent possible without causing undue weaving or pumping of the subgrade soils. Subgrade disturbance or deterioration could occur if the subgrade is wet and cannot be dried. If the subgrade deteriorates during proofrolling or compaction, it may become necessary to modify the proofrolling or compaction criteria or methods. Structural Fill All fill that will support floor slabs, pavement areas or foundations, or be placed in utility trenches should generally meet the criteria for structural fill presented below. The suitability of soil for use as structural fill depends on its gradation and moisture content. Materials. Materials used to construct the building pads,. placed under hardscape, and backfill utility trenches are classified as structural fill for the purpose of this report. Structural fill material quality varies depending upon its use as described below: 1. Structural fill placed to support building foundations and floor slabs should consist of imported Gravel Borrow as described in Section 9-03.14(1) of the 2010 Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specifications, with the additional restriction that the fines content be limited to no more than 5 percent. 2. Structural fill placed to construct embankments, parking and hardscape areas, and to backfill utility trenches may consist of on-site glacial till provided that the soils are conditioned for the required compaction. On-site till soils may be suitable for use as structural fill during dry weather conditions in areas needing 95 percent compaction provided that the soils are properly moisture conditioned. We expect that the on-site soils will have to be dried prior to placement as structural fill. If structural fill is placed during wet weather, or if on-site soils can not be properly conditioned during summer months, then the structural fill should consist of imported Gravel Borrow as described above. It may be possible to use on-site till soils during wet weather for areas requiring only 90 percent compaction provided the earthwork contractor implements good wet weather techniques. Page 10 June 3, 2010 GeoEngineers, Ine. rile No. 1406-009-00 PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Auburn, Washington 3. Drain rock placed for footing drains (drainage zone) should consist of washed 3/87inch to No. 8 pea gravel or conform to Section 9-03.12(4) of the 2010 WSDOT Standard Specifications, as shown on Figure 3. 4. Crushed surfacing base course below pavements should conform to Section 9-03.9(3) of the 2010 WSDOT Standard Specifications. 5. Capillary break below building slabs-on-grade should consist of 11/2-inch minus clean crushed gravel with negligible sand or silt in conformance with Section 9-03.1(4)C, grading No. 57 of the 2010 WSDOT Standard Specifications. Reuse of On-site Native Soils. The till soils contain a high percentage of fines and will be sensitive to changes in moisture content and difficult to handle and compact during wet weather. The use of existing on-site lodgement till soils as structural fill during wet weather should be planned only for areas requiring compaction to 90 percent of MDD, provided the soils are properly moisture conditioned, protected from wet weather, and not placed during periods of precipitation. On-site till soils may be suitable for use as structural fill in during dry weather conditions in parking and sidewalk areas, and utility trenches needing 95 percent compaction, provided that the soils are properly moisture conditioned. The contractor should plan to cover and maintain all fill stockpiles with plastic sheeting if it will be used as structural fill. The reuse of on-site soils is highly dependent on the skill of the contractor and schedule, and we will work with the design team and contractor to maximize the reuse of on-site till soils during the wet and dry seasons. Use of Recycled Glass. Recycled glass may also be used as structural fill in some areas. Based on the project location, it may be economical to use recycled glass in lieu of imported materials. We recommend that recycled glass meet the requirements of recycled glass aggregates as described in Section 9-03.21(4) of the 2010 WSDOT Standard Specifications. Fill Placement and Compaction Criteria. Structural fill should be mechanically compacted to a firm, non-yielding condition. Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness if using heavy compactors, or 4 inches if using hand equipment. The actual thickness will be dependent on the structural fill material used and the type and size of compaction equipment. Each lift should be conditioned to the proper moisture content and compacted to the specified density before placing subsequent lifts. Compaction of all structural fill at the site should be in accordance with the ASTM D 1557 (modified proctor) test method. Structural fill should be compacted to the following criteria: 1. Structural fill placed below building foundations and concrete slabs-on-grade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD. 2. Structural fill placed behind below-grade walls should be compacted to between 90 to 92 percent of the MDD. Care should be taken when compacting fill near the face of below-grade walls to avoid over-compaction and hence overstressing the walls. Hand operated compactors should be used within 5 feet behind the wall. The contractor should keep all heavy construction equipment away from the top of retaining walls a distance equal to 1/2 the height of the wall, or at least 5 feet, whichever is greater. Lune 3, 2010 Page 11 EO E I N E ERS File No. 1406-009-00 i I PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Auburn, Washington i I 1 3. Structural fill in new pavement and hardscape areas, including utility trench backfill, should be 1 compacted to at least 90 percent of the MDD, except that the upper 2 feet of fill below final subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD, see Figure 4. I 4. Crushed surfacing base course below pavements and hardscape should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD. s 5. Non-structural fill, such as fill placed in landscape areas, should be compacted to at least ' 90 percent of the MDD, unless otherwise specified by the landscape architect. j Weather Considerations. Disturbance of near surface soils should be expected if earthwork is i completed during periods of wet weather. During dry weather the soils will (1) be less susceptible i j to disturbance; (2) provide better support for construction equipment; and (3) be more likely to meet the required compaction criteria. The wet weather season generally begins in October and continues through May in western Washington; however, periods of wet weather may occur during any month of the year. For earthwork activities during wet weather, we recommend that the following steps be taken: j • The ground surface in and around the work area should be sloped so that surface water is f directed away from the work area. The ground surface should be graded so that areas of ponded water do not develop. Measures should be taken by the contractor to prevent surface j water from collecting in excavations and trenches. Measures should be implemented to remove surface water from the work area. ® Earthwork activities should not take place during periods of moderate to heavy precipitation. ■ Slopes with exposed soils should be covered with plastic sheeting. ■ The contractor should take necessary measures to prevent on-site soils and soils to be used as fill from becoming wet or unstable. These measures may include the use of plastic sheeting, sumps with pumps, and grading. The site soils should not be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. Sealing the surficial soils by rolling with a smooth-drum roller prior to periods of precipitation will help reduce the extent that these soils become wet or unstable. ■ The contractor should cover all soil stockpiles that will be used as structural fill with plastic sheeting. ■ Construction traffic should be restricted to specific areas of the site, preferably areas that are surfaced with the existing asphalt or working pad materials not susceptible to wet weather disturbance. ■ Construction activities should be scheduled so that the length of time that soils are left exposed to moisture is reduced to the extent practical. Routing of equipment on the native till subgrade soils during the wet weather months will be difficult and the subgrade will likely become highly disturbed and rutted. In addition, a significant amount of mud can be produced by routing equipment directly on the glacial soils in wet weather. Therefore, to protect the subgrade soils and to provide an adequate wet weather working surface for the contractor's equipment and labor, we recommend that the contractor protect exposed subgrade soils with sand and gravel, crushed gravel, or ATB. Page 12 June 3, 2010 GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 1406-009-00 PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Auburn, Washington Utility Trenches Trench excavation, pipe bedding, and trench backfilling should be completed using the general procedures described in the 2010 WSDOT Standard Specifications or other suitable procedures specified by the project civil engineer. The native glacial till and fill soils encountered at the site are generally of low corrosivity based on our experience in the Puget Sound area. Utility trench backfill should consist of structural fill and should be placed in lifts of 8 inches or less (loose thickness) such that adequate compaction can be achieved throughout the lift. Sand backfill, containing less than 5 percent fines, may be compacted in loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches when placed below five feet of the finished ground surface. Each lift must be compacted prior to placing the subsequent lift. Prior to compaction, the backfill should be moisture conditioned to within 3 percent of the optimum moisture content, if necessary. The backfill should be compacted in accordance with the criteria discussed above. Figure 4 illustrates recommended trench compaction criteria under pavement and non-structural areas. 'Out and Fill Slopes General At this time, we expect that temporary open cut slopes will be suitable for excavations required for the project. The following sections summarize the general excavation recommendations for temporary cut slopes and permanent cut and fill slopes. Temporary Cut Slopes The stability of open cut slopes is a function of soil type, groundwater seepage, slope inclination, slope height and nearby surface loads. The use of inadequately designed open cuts could impact the stability of adjacent work areas, existing utilities, and endanger personnel. In our opinion, the contractor will be in the best position to observe subsurface conditions continuously throughout the construction process and to respond to variable soil and groundwater conditions. Therefore, the contractor should have the primary responsibility for deciding whether or not to use open cut slopes rather than some form of temporary excavation support, and for establishing the safe inclination of the cut slope. Acceptable slope inclinations should be determined during construction. All open cut slopes and temporary excavation support should be constructed or installed, and maintained in accordance with the requirements of the appropriate governmental agency. For planning purposes, temporary unsupported cut slopes more than 4 feet high may be inclined at 11hH:1V (horizontal:vertical) maximum steepness within the existing fill, ablation till, weathered lodgement till, surficial soils, and within properly compacted structural fill. Cut slopes can be steepened to 1H:1V within the dense to very dense glacial till if groundwater seepage is not present and as approved by the geotechnical engineer. We recommend that a representative from our firm observe the cuts in the glacial till to assess stability prior to making final temporary cuts. The above guidelines assume that surface loads such as equipment loads and storage loads will be kept a sufficient distance away from the top of the cut so that the stability of the excavation is not affected. We recommend that this distance be not less than half the height of the cut. June 3, 2010 Page 13 GEOENGINEERS v rite No. 1406.009-00 PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Auburn, Washington ' Some sloughing and raveling of the cut slopes should be expected. Temporary covering, such as heavy plastic sheeting with appropriate ballast, should be used to protect these slopes during periods of wet weather. Surface water runoff from above cut slopes should be prevented from flowing over the slope face by using berms, drainage ditches, swales or other appropriate methods. If temporary cut slopes experience excessive sloughing or raveling during construction, it may become necessary to modify the cut slopes to maintain safe working conditions. Slopes experiencing problems can be flattened, regraded to add intermediate slope benches, or additional dewatering can be provided if the poor slope performance is related to groundwater seepage. Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes We recommend that permanent cut or fill slopes be constructed at inclinations of 2H:1V or flatter, and be blended into existing slopes with smooth transitions. Steeper slopes can be constructed if the fill is reinforced with geogrid or other types of reinforcement designed for fill slopes. To achieve uniform compaction, we recommend that fill slopes be overbuilt slightly and subsequently cut back to expose well-compacted fill. Structural fill placed on slopes inclined steeper than 5H:1V should be properly keyed into the native soils within the slope. To reduce erosion, newly constructed slopes should be planted or hydroseeded shortly after completion of grading. Until the vegetation is established, some sloughing and raveling of the slopes should be expected. This may necessitate localized repairs and reseeding. Temporary covering, such as clear heavy plastic sheeting, jute fabric, or erosion control blankets (such as American Excelsior Curlex 1 or North American Green SC150 could be used to protect the slopes during periods of rainfall. Sedimentation and Erosion Control In our opinion, the erosion potential of the on-site soils is low to moderate. Construction activities including stripping and grading will expose soils to the erosional effects of wind and water. The amount and potential impacts of erosion are partly related to the time of year that construction actually occurs. Wet weather construction will increase the amount and extent of erosion and potential sedimentation. Erosion and sedimentation control measures may be implemented by using a combination of interceptor swales, straw bale barriers, silt fences and straw mulch for temporary erosion protection of exposed soils. All disturbed areas should be finish graded and seeded as soon as practical to reduce the risk of erosion. Erosion and sedimentation control measures should be installed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of the City of Auburn. Below-Grade Walls Design Parameters The following recommendations should be used for the design of below-grade walls that are intended to act as retaining walls such as portions of the west building wall or below-grade loading docks. For below grade walls that are free to yield at the top at least 0.1 percent of the height of the wall, soil pressures will be less than if movement is limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing. Lateral earth pressures for design of cast-in-place retaining walls should be evaluated Page 14 June 3, 2010 GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 1406-009-00 PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Auburn, Washington using an equivalent fluid density of 35 pcf, provided that the walls will not be restrained against rotation when backfill is placed. If the walls will be restrained from rotation, we recommend using an equivalent fluid density of 55 pcf. Walls are assumed to be restrained if top movement during backfilling is less than H/1000, where H is the wall height. These lateral soil pressures assume that the ground surface behind the wall is horizontal. For unrestrained walls with backfill sloping up at 2H:1V, the design lateral earth pressure should be increased to 55 pcf, while restrained walls with a 2H:1V sloping backfill should be designed using an equivalent fluid density of 75 pcf. These lateral soil pressures do not include the effects of surcharges such as floor loads, traffic loads or other surface loading. Surcharge effects should be included as appropriate, as shown in Figure 5. Below-grade walls for buildings should also include seismic earth pressures. Seismic earth pressures should be determined using a rectangular distribution of 7H psf, where H is the wall height. The values for soil bearing, frictional resistance and passive resistance presented above for foundation design are applicable to retaining wall design. Walls located in level ground areas should be founded at a depth of 18 inches below the adjacent grade. If vehicles can approach the tops of exterior walls to within 1/2 the height of the wall, a traffic surcharge should be added to the wall pressure. For car parking areas, the traffic surcharge can be approximated by the equivalent weight of an additional 1 foot of soil backfill (125 psf) behind the wall. For delivery truck parking areas and access driveway areas, the traffic surcharge can be approximated by the equivalent weight of an additional 2 feet (250 psf) of soil backfill behind the wall. Other surcharge loads, such as from foundations, construction equipment, or construction staging areas, should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Lateral resistance for retaining walls can be provided by frictional resistance along the base of the wall and passive resistance in front of the wall as described in the foundation design section of the report. The above soil pressures assume that wall drains will be installed to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the walls, as discussed below. Wall Drainage To reduce the potential for hydrostatic water pressure buildup behind the below-grade walls, we recommend that the walls be provided with adequate drainage, as shown in Figure 3. Wall drainage can be achieved by using free draining wall drainage material with perforated pipes to discharge the collected water. The zone of wall drainage material should be 2 feet wide and should extend from the base of the wall to within 2 feet of the ground surface. The wall drainage material should be covered with 2 feet of less permeable material, such as the on-site glacial soils that are properly moisture conditioned and compacted. A 4-inch-diameter perforated drain pipe should be installed within the free-draining material at the base of each wall. We recommend using either heavy-wall solid pipe (SDR-35 PVC) or rigid corrugated polyethylene pipe (ADS N-12, or equal). We recommend against using flexible tubing for the wall drain pipe. The pipes should be laid with minimum slopes of one-quarter percent and discharge into the storm water collection system or to the adjacent greenbelt. The pipe installations should include a cleanout riser with cover located at the upper end of each pipe run. June 3, 2010 Page 15 G EO E NG I N E ERS~ File No. 1406.009-00 PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Auburn, Washington , Drainage Considerations We anticipate shallow groundwater seepage may enter deep excavations depending on the time of year construction takes place, especially in the winter months. However, we expect that this seepage water can be handled by digging interceptor trenches in the excavations and pumping from sumps. The seepage water if not intercepted and removed from the excavations will make it difficult to place and compact structural fill and may destabilize cut slopes. All paved and landscaped areas should be graded so that surface drainage is directed away from the buildings to appropriate catch basins. Water collected in roof downspout lines must not be routed to the footing drain lines. Roof downspout water should be routed to appropriate discharge points in separate pipe systems. Pavement Recommendations Subgrade Preparation We recommend that the subgrade soils in new pavement areas be prepared and evaluated as described in the "Earthwork" section of this report. In cut areas exposing native ablation till or fill soils, we recommend that existing subgrade soils be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM D 1557 prior to placing pavement section materials. Portions of the west access driveway and parking areas that are more than 3 feet below existing grades may consist of dense to very dense lodgment till, which may not require recompaction. Loose, soft or otherwise unsuitable subgrade soils should be removed and replaced with structural fill. Pavement subgrade conditions should be observed and proof-rolled during construction to evaluate the presence of unsuitable subgrade soils and the need for over-excavation and placement of a geotextile separator. Structural fill placed to achieve design grades should be placed as described in the "Earthwork" section of this report. New Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Pavement In light-duty pavement areas (e.g., automobile parking), we recommend a pavement section consisting of at least a 2-inch thickness of 1/2-inch HMA (PG 58-22) per WSDOT Sections 5-04 and 9-03, over a 4-inch thickness of densely compacted crushed rock base course per WSDOT Section 9-03.9(3). In heavy-duty pavement areas (e.g., truck traffic areas, materials delivery) around the buildings, we recommend a pavement section consisting of at least a 3-inch thickness of 1/2-inch HMA (PG 58-22) over a 6-inch thickness of densely compacted crushed rock base course. The base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). We recommend that a proof-roll of the compacted base course be observed by a representative from our firm prior to paving. Soft or yielding areas observed during proof-rolling may require over-excavation and replacement with compacted structural fill. The pavement sections recommended above are based on our experience. Thicker asphalt sections may be needed based on the actual traffic data and intended use. Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Portland cement concrete (PCC) sections should be considered for loading dock aprons, trash dumpster areas and where other concentrated heavy loads may occur. We recommend that these Page 16 June 3, 2010 GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 1406.009-00 PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Auburn, Washington pavements consist of at least 6 inches of PCC over 6 inches of crushed surfacing base course. If the concrete pavement will have doweled joints, we recommend that the concrete thickness be increased by an amount equal to the diameter of the dowels. The base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent MDD. A thicker concrete section may be needed based on the actual load requirements. We recommend that PCC pavements incorporate construction joints and/or crack control joints that are spaced maximum distances of 12 feet apart, center-to-center, in both the longitudinal and transverse directions. Crack control joints may be created by placing an insert or groove into the fresh concrete surface during finishing, or by sawcutting the concrete after it has initially set-up. We recommend that the depth of the crack control joints be approximately 1/4 the thickness of the concrete; or about 11/2 inches deep for the recommended concrete thickness of 6 inches. We also recommend that the crack control joints be sealed with an appropriate sealant to help restrict water infiltration into the joints. Asphalt-Treated Base If pavements are constructed during the wet seasons, consideration may be given to covering the areas to be paved with asphalt-treated base (ATB) for protection. Light-duty pavement areas should be surfaced with 3 inches of ATB, and heavy-duty pavement areas should be surfaced with 6 inches of ATB. Prior to placement of the final pavement sections, we recommend that areas of ATB pavement failure be removed and the subgrade repaired. If ATB is used and is serviceable when final pavements are constructed, the crushed surfacing base course can be eliminated, and the design Portland cement concrete or asphalt concrete pavement thickness can be placed directly over the ATB. Infiltration We understand that the stormwater detention facilities will be designed with an open bottom to allow for some infiltration of the stormwater. These facilities may consist of open half-round pipes set on a bed of gravel. We understand that the base of the pipes will be 5 to 6 feet below the design pavement elevations. Two methods were used to evaluate an appropriate design (long-term) infiltration rate for the proposed infiltration facilities. These methods consist of correlations based on United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil textural classification and ASTM gradation testing, as discussed in Section 3.3.6 of the Stormwater Management Manual (SWMM) for Western Washington (Ecology, 2005), and Section 2.2.8 of the SWMM for the City of Auburn (2009). The results of the grain size analyses are presented in Appendix B. Table 3 presents a summary of the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions observed in the borings at the site. The table also includes recommended design infiltration rates based on ASTM laboratory gradation testing and on the USDA textural class. GEOENGINEERS~ June 3, 2010 Page 17 Fite No. 1406-009.00 PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Auburn, Washington ' TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE AND INFILTRATION DATA Depth Approximate Infiltration Rate Interval Soil USDA Textural ASTM Dso Groundwater (inches/hour) z Boring (feet) Classification Class (MM) 2 Depth (ft)1 USDA ASTM 0-5 SM Sandy loam SM 0.25 «0.8 B -5 5-10 SM Sandy loam <0.075 8 0.25 «0.8 10+ SM Sandy loam <0.075 0.25 «0.8 0-5 GM/SM Loamy sand/ <0.075 0.25 «0.8 sandy loam B-6 5-10 GM (Loamy gravel)3 <0.075 6 0.25 «0.8 10+ SM Sandy loam <0.075 0.25 «0.8 0-4 SM Sandy loam <0.075 0.25 «0.8 B-7 4-6 SM Sandy loam <0.075 6 0.25 «0.8 6+ SM Sandy loam <0.075 0.25 «0.8 0-2 GP (gravel)3 0.2 2 2-3 B-8 2 -6 GW-GM (Loamy gravel)3 0.75 7.5 0.25 1 6+ SM Sandy loam <0.075 0.25 «0.8 0-4 SM Sandy loam (fill) <0.075 0.25 «0.8 B-9 4-6 GM (Loamy gravel)3 <0.075 6.5 0.25 «0.8 6-8 SM Sandy loam <0.075 0.25 «0.8 8+ SM Sandy loam <0.075 0.25 «0.8 N otes: 1 Depth to groundwater below existing ground surface, measured at time of drilling. 2 D10 and infiltration rates shown are estimated when no gradation tests were available. 3Gravel not shown as a USDA Textural Class. Recommended Design Infiltration Rates Based on our analysis, it is our opinion that the on-site soils have a low infiltration capacity. We understand that the depth to the bottom of the infiltration facility may be approximately 5 feet. The majority of the soils below the bottom of the planned infiltration facilities contain significant fines, which limits the infiltration capacity. We recommend an infiltration rate of not more than 0.25 inches per hour be used for soils above the groundwater table, and 0.1 inches per hour be used for soils below the groundwater table for design of the infiltration facilities. The infiltration rate of the lodgement till should be considered negligible and should not exceed 0.1 inches per hour. The effects of mounding should be included in the overall evaluation of the detention/infiltration system. As noted in Table 3, a layer of silty gravel (GM) was encountered in some of the borings; however, the areal extent of the gravel is not known and the gravel layer was often encountered near or below the groundwater table. A higher design infiltration rate may be possible; however, this will require completing Pilot Infiltration Tests (PITS) as discussed in Ecology, 2005. Page 18 June 3.2010 GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. ! f00~005-00 PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Auburn, Washington Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services Throughout this report, recommendations are provided where we consider additional geotechnical services to be appropriate. These additional services are summarized below: GeoEngineers should be retained to review the project plans and specifications when complete to confirm that our design recommendations have been implemented as intended. During construction, GeoEngineers should observe removal.of unsuitable soils from below the building footprint, evaluate the. suitability of the foundation subgrades, evaluate the suitability of floor slab and pavement subgrades, observe installation of subsurface drainage measures, observe and. test. structural- backfill, and provide a summary letter of our construction observation services. The purposes of GeoEngineers construction phase services are to confirm that the subsurface conditions are consistent with those observed in the explorations and other reasons described in Appendix C, Report, Limitations and Guidelines for Use. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by S.M. Stemper Architects and Green River Community College, and other members,of the project team. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. Please refer to Appendix C titled Report. Limitations and Guidelines for Use for additional information pertaining to use of this report. Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if.provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is.stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve.as the official document of record. June 3, 2010 Page 19 . File No. Taos-aos-oo GEOENGINEERSr, k _ ,1 x - J C got: ~a s - SEW 1stPl y SE 301st'8t.. SE-301st St--•-- w _w_r,_,. ; a. ' ~ U) y > sE ~$E-302nd-St - i " e-- i ~,-^,t ¢ w r i'SE-302nd-PI r O L - a y3 t+ ``off -t......__....__.-...,.......N._SE•304th St..-,_..,. 4 04th: S SE 304th P1 - _.a.........,_-__w s~ d+M. Ji P a = - SE SE305th•PI St . _ ;305th w.. w Q. Isaac Evans Pa:4' - `a b..- N N r a 1 cu --a s z 3¢ w Ei- U) I ~ N ~ SE 307th St ' 2nd'St-.NE ? W SE 308 2 V) th'PI m SE 3091h'St w 20th St NE- p Q SE-310th St- t I E to y-"-1 9th Dr N E-r-"2 .'C. s~.._.W....__ t m V; `SE 311th'St ~~~-t ° SE 312 h In r \ER ~wran...rw..+. t w .tars . S C/) S ' SE 313th-S1 `--ice j dray N I.--- ~ `S ¢ w l E 314t St- U) _ .-_Lu S&315thSt L......._.1,..1,....~ SE 315th Pl > r SITE o_ t , _ St-~-• N . a ,..m , LLI S s y P~ Aubumdale Patio SE 318th•Way - tom, m rq = y - z m 'C a HDr f N J:.:. SE,319th'St U) V, w~ ¢ L Lea f liR, rk 1-0 WOOMANV6 o SE,320th PI 0 7th St-NE W- 0 6th SPNE, g' CV 5th-St NEB ~W ; y . y N a O 6; w rSE923rd-St 4th-SINE=-- ¢ w " `-SE 323rd•PI--._,b ' Q w' w r _ w j ~ ~r OZ t omm to-- Q.'? ~ (n ' / . 0~~ E Main St------a2.. C'1sStSE U) y---2nd St-SE- Q LU F 3rd Gt•SE a Gj~L 4 NOSY-1 m I-r-14th'ShSE SE,,. .4, Hatche y Park Auburn Narrows Park N i SE~Lake,Ho.Im.Rd- White Lake 18 / £ SE.337th.St 'I w CD, In ,t t x m ~i H E I m I O Or f i v m 01 o Skyway fin.. 16th St-SE-•,7' 0 C) 01"'nipic tjp 'A to S r 6a E 2,000 0 2,000 aa) L Washingg n ° - MountRar.terNP Feet n_ 74- > Notes: Vicinity Map 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in .E showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. Trades Building a cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of Green River Community College this communication. 3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for > personal use or resale, without permission. r ;6 Data Sources: ESRI Data & Maps, Street Maps 2005 Figure 1 w GWENGINEER w Transverse Mercator, Zone 10 N North, North American Datum 1983 0 North arrow oriented to grid north i � �� ��'—�� �a �� �� � ��i'�'� �� �4����� � , { i � ] � �i': • — — — — �� �'�1' � _ _ � ` _ A F� � = ������`� �I �,��� — — � � � �a..a���+�� - - -- ���'. �� I��'I ' � t __ . ,�,ma�_— _ x�, � � �'�� �� � � (�I`I _ � , � � � `__- ! ' �!: YI�'' I , ` I ' I — — — � i � � �a_ � �: � ��� i ; � { � .� � , I i : .. � � � . ... .. ...--- 8.� � _ \.':.' ;.,. .. i � ., , I ��. � �'�F�"— — — --{ `r ; ,., — — — '_ ' ' _ . ' , py . , I I , _ ♦ I j r�it �h " �1 i i I ` I �� I6PM1( STI1LLf � I � i ,I B-7 �j i � j t� �' � � E � �wronom� i i� ��� � � I�' AUIOBOOY � , a _ I J, nuu ., � .. i l i . ; t,}I ' � � � '' . � � . �. ?.. ' ' �'�31�iHnA � � 1 .� � � ; � � . I^. ♦ � .'� � 1� I . I ` � ��� �� d�, � � G�I�S ' y , ' �• i _,.., . . . � __ - � � , � �—,� � 9k _ _ _ �i��B�� } _ r" \ ' ' ('-i % WEST ,_ � � ,!�i 1 i �� . �'�,: � ' � ���) oEielna�rdro � } � ' I I 3Ir, :�_, � � '� � ��— B'Z� UI�LDNG � '�:�'= `ri� �: � �'�'.�. ,i I � �:i�. , , � M � ' / 4 1 � � B-S_ �� �� � ���� �� �`� -� I � —, I � ��� _ �_ � , _ ' ot���� � � � � ,..�I 1 �� ��� - ` , y � \ � I��i I �i�l'� � — � � �; � e�vnwxc � ;o.+-- �' ,I k — — _ _ a' /_ ',/I nw.; _ �f^ _ . I.I I I ' �� . _ _ \ \: i , , ---I � :� , __ � � N . . , f ' '/�' - � � .. �� + ` '�i I ) �Ij'. A J J ` ) / � � I I I O _ ��" - � i�✓ �����t I r j . :;; , ' _ / � I !. � € t�� , ': �-8 � � ! L I�� < (II� 1 I . € ` f 'i` i �, B.3 i' I I i � I ' I � �,; I!�. ', � — ` - �n�� �'i � �� I m , � : , , _� I , I ,� — B 1R�r � _T - � � _ F �' f � = I A I o I "�'� � SOUTH � ' r � ��,`���I �*�_ = I` I y4 .. ' TRADES � I II � � �-: I B-4 1 � ��i �f 1 ' i;; � �i ` � i : BUILDING B.5-qi- /Il � ' I7 t ; � J I�., � � .Y I I �` . ._. _ _ I �� / ���'.'� Il'�.I . �.., � !� � :, _- _ - — , ` J°y � �� i I , _ . _ ---. . a , �- -� �- i I ' a � :� �__ :. _.— ��— __ - -- � { t ` , .:._ �z_ _ -.__ =- �— '- 1 , _ .. _. . �_. .__ -�_ I . _ ' � -� y v u ' (a .. �� _ —�J t oLegend �_. � x . SEl30IX� - _ ��_ 3. I i F _ 1 � � � LL � T- .�'- .._ .= l _ _� A � _ ' T G = � � � 4 a 8-1� Boring by GeoEngineers - —��— — - °t `r � - L -- _ � -- '� � _. ,. �. _ � _ . � g � , . .._�! - �cROCwri+u'wn' �. . . , I — � .�� �� � -- ' , ? � .._. , , � �. � � u . � ' , � .. � .!-�. .. � . , - � � Notes , : p �>::>. o � ,. . a t.The IocaUons of all fealures shown are approprtrate. 0 2.This drawing is tor infortnation pwposes.It is intended to � � assist in showing fealures discussed In an attsched N Site Plan document.GeoEngineers,Inc.can not guarentee the accuracy and content of alectmnic files.The master file is N' E • � stored by GeoEngineers,i��.a�d W�n Serya eg ma or�Gei � Trades Building � record otthis communicatlon. S Green River Community College � Reference:Base drawings 1006-04 ARCH Site Plan.dwg, 100 0 100 w 7006-04Pi.dwg,and106-04SV.dwgprovldedbyS.M. FEET GEOENGINEERS� Figure�2 � Stemper Architeds on 4f7l2010. 3 GROUND SURFACE NON-STRUCTURAL HARDSCAPE OR AREAS PAVEMENT AREAS VARIES 0 9 2 FEET X XX X VARIES (SEE NOTE 1) o.~aQo 0.001... ~aO oO VARIES Q.a \ '.a.p O '-0.0 a o o .6. o.a0oQ:Qpooo~aOoQ. a.po .'DO~oo oi'1_ E Pn NOT TO SCALE N Nq Q C O V Legend: o s RECOMMENDED COMPACTION AS A PERCENTAGE OF ® MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY, BY TEST METHOD ASTM D1557 m (MODIFIED PROCTOR) a CONCRETE OR ASPHALT PAVEMENT LL O BASE COURSE 0 o TRENCH BACKFILL Compaction Criteria for Trench Backfill o °o jO o °o PIPE BEDDING Trades Building ° Green River Community College U Notes: 1. All backfill under building areas should be compacted to G ME NG I N E ERS~ Figure 4 at least 95 percent per ASTM D1557. L! EXTERIOR WALL SLOPED TO DRAIN AWAY FROM STRUCTURE ~_-1 I I -III-IT-III- PAVEMENT OR 24 WALL DRAINAGE MATERIAL = IIf= _ IMPERVIOUS SOIL ~i~ -III=I I= I . I I III- II-III= RETAINED SOIL ij =III-11 - 2' MIN. II-III-III III-III= DAMP PROOFING TEMPORARY -I I I-I EXCAVATION SLOPE 1=III= IIII~ III 12" MIN. COVER OF DRAINAGE MATERIAL (6" MIN. ON SIDES OF PIPE) 4" DIAMETER PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE NOT TO SCALE N Materials: 0 fV o A. WALL DRAINAGE MATERIAL: May consist of washed 3/8" to No. 8 pea gravel. Alternatively the wall drainage N material may consist of "Gravel Backfill for Drains" per WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(4), surrounded with a N non-woven geotextile such as Mirafi 140N (or approved equivalent). n a B. RETAINED SOIL: Should consist of structural fill, either on-site soil or imported. The backfill should be compacted in loose lifts not exceeding 6 inches. Wall backfill supporting building floor slabs should consist of imported sand and o gravel per WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.14 (1) "Gravel Borrow" compacted to at least 95 percent ASTM D1557. E Backfill not supporting building floor slabs, sidewalks, or pavement should be compacted to 90 to 92 percent of the maximum dry density, per ASTM D1557. Backfill supporting sidewalks or pavement areas should be compacted to at m least 95 percent in the upper two feet. Only hand-operated equipment should be used for compaction within 5 feet of the Q walls and no heavy equipment should be allowed within 5 feet of the wall. C. PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE: Should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated heavy-wall solid pipe (SDR-35 PVC) c6 or rigid corrugated polyethylene pipe (ADS N-12) or equivalent. Drain pipes should be placed with 0.25 percent minimum CD slopes and discharge to the storm water collection system. 0 0 co 0 v D Q U 'rn Wall Drainage and Backfill 0 N Trades Building Green River Community College 2 GMENGINEERS~ Figure 3 w , , I, DEFINITIONS: NOTES: (;,= Pdnt load in pounds LproceduresTor estimaWg swchaige pressurea ahown above are based on Manual� - � � C�= Liire load in pounds/faot � 7.02 Naval FadliUes Engineering Canmend;Sep(empe�jggg(NAVFAC OM 7.02). . H = Excavation height below foodng,feel . 2.Laferefeaith pressures from�surcharge should tie edded ta eaM pressures �= Laleral earth pressure fmm surchaige,psf preaented in Ihe report text ea appropria[e.; � . q = Surcharge p�essure in psf 3.See repoA Ieut for wFiere surcha�ge pressures are appropriale. e�= Radia� . . � . . a�= Dislribution of aH in plan view � , � Px= Resultanl leterel force ading on wall,pounds � '. � R� = Disfance from base oi excavation to resullant lateral fo�ce,teet ' . � ' LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE FROM LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE FROM UNIFORM SURCHARGES, q POINT LOAD, �P(SPREAD FOOTING) LINE LOAD, Q��CONTINUOUS WALL FOOTING) (FLOOR LOADS; LARGE FOUNDATION � x— m H � �{ x— m H � ELEMENTS:OR OTHER SURFACE LOADS) '•.�/ / Qp I '•./i./ Q 9 �Psf) L Z=nH P. Z=nH P H A A' � H Ux R 6x R BASE OF � BASE OF � BASE OF EXCAVATION EXCAVATION EXCAVATION '-./i./ "'� � / �`����� � QH �0.25•9 m � �P9f�' <`! � FOR ma0.4 � = 0.28Q n2 FOR m s 0.4 � g' " Qx = LATERAL SURCHARGE PRESSURE � Hz(0.16+n�)� q� = 0.2n•q FROM UNIFORM SURCHARGE € H(0.16+nz)� � FOR m > 0.4 � q� = 1.770,mz nz �?a= 0.55Q� � Hz(m'+n')' FOR m > 0.4 " q� = aH COS�(1.79) q� = 1.28rr� n•f� � H(mz+n�)z � RESULTANT P = 0.64Q� LL M IPx(�� R �N �---ti �mz+�� I � 0 0.2 � �0.78� 0.59H � Q ' P M R � ' a.. e 0;4 �0.78 0l59H o ' � o Q" 0.1 O.60H � ' o:s o:45, b:aaH � Recommended Surcharge Pressur!e ° � 0,3 O.60H � 0 —�x= m�N Trades+Building o.s o.ssH G�een River Community College a SECTION A—A� 0.7 0.48H W Pressures from Point Load G1P GEOENGINEER� Figure5 ' 3 _ ,, r . ' , , - � i !pit o a9ml OWNS f s - l ^ ` , APPEIV®1X A, Field Explorations : . rJ _ i / g r:.m. r~ a ! / •R' _ _ f fir' - rou. t , r .i " fir ~ E i ~ , s ~ , . ~ ~ ' i 't. , i P r ! PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Auburn, Washington APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions were explored at the site by drilling ten borings on March 25 and 26, 2010. The borings were completed to depths ranging from about 9 to 18 feet below the existing ground surface. Locations of the explorations were determined in the field by pacing and measuring distances from the exploration locations to existing site features, such as fences.. The site was previously surveyed, and the boring locations shown in Figure 2 and the vertical elevations reported on the boring logs have been estimated from this survey. The' `borings were drilled by Holocene Drilling of Fife, Washington, using a track-mounted Diedrich D-50 limited,.access drill rig equipped with an automatic hammer. The borings were advanced using hollow-stem auger techniques utilizing 4-inch inside diameter (ID) augers. Drilling services were subcontracted to GeoEngineers and the borings were advanced under, the full-time observation of a representative from our.firm. The soils encountered in the borings were typically sampled at 21/2 to 5-foot vertical intervals with a 2-inch outside diameter (OD) split-barrel standard penetration test (SPT) sampler. The samples were obtained by driving the sampler 18 inches into the soil withr a 140-pound hammer free-falling 30 inches. The number of blows required for each 6 inches of penetration is recorded. The, blow count ("N-value") of the soil is calculated as the number of blows required for.the final 12 inches of penetration. This resistance, or N-value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. Where very dense soil conditions or cobbles/boulders preclude driving the full 18 inches, the penetration resistance for the partial ; penetration is entered on the logs. The blow counts are shown on the boring logs at the respective sample depths. The borings were logged by a field technician from our firm who identified the exploration locations, classified the soils encountered, obtained representative soil samples, and maintained a detailed log of each boring. The soils encountered during boring operations were visually classified in the field in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, (USCS), ASTM D 2488, and the system described on Figure A-1. Representative soil samples obtained from the borings were placed in plastic bags,, and transported to, our laboratory in Redmond, Washington. The field classifications were checked and/or modified in our laboratory. Pertinent information including soil sample depth,.stratigraphy, and groundwater occurrence were also recorded during drilling.- Groundwater, levels were estimated by observing soil samples and the drill rods. '.The drilling operation was also monitored for indication of various drilling conditions, such as hard and soft drilling. At completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled in accordance with the procedures of the Washington State Department of Ecology. A key to the symbols and terms used on the logs are included on Figure A-1. Summary boring]ogs are presented on Figures A-2 through A-11. These logs are based on our interpretation of the field and laboratory data and indicate the various types of soils encountered. They also indicate the approximate depths at which the soils or their characteristics change, although the change may actually be gradual. If a change occurred between samples in the explorations, it was.interpreted. i GEOENGINEERS~ June3,2010 Page A-1 File No. 1406-009-00 SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS SYMBOLS TYPICAL SYMBOLS TYPICAL MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS WELL-GRADED GRAVELS. GRAVEL- ~7 CLEAN 0 CT GW SANDMDRURES CC Cement Concrete GRAVEL GRAVELS AND O O pppRLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL- GRAVELLY (LITTLE OR NO FINES) D p GP SAND MIXTURES SOILS o o AC Asphalt Concrete COARSE GRAVELS WITH o ° GM MIXrURESVELS.GRAVEL -SAND =SILT Crushed Rock/ GRAINED COARSE FRACTION FINES CR Quarry Spalls SOILS RETAINED ON NO.4 ES ,GRAVEL- SAND- SIEVE (APPRECIAB AMOUNT CLAYEY GRAVELS FINES) TS Topsoil/ Forest Duff/Sod se. .ee a S.W WELL-GRADED SANDS. GRAVELLY CLEAN SANDS sAt~oS MORE THAN 50% SAND RETAINED ON NO. AND (LITTLE OR NO FlNES) 200 SIEVE POORLY-GRADED SANDS. GRAVELLY SANDY SP SAND Measured groundwater level in SOILS _ exploration, well, or piezometer MORE THAN 50% OF SANDS WITH SM SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES Groundwater observed at time of COARSEFRACTION FINES PASSING NO. 4 exploration - SIEVE CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY (APPREFINEESM sc MIXTURES ) Perched water observed at time of OFF FlL exploration INORGANIC SILTS, ROCK FLOUR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT Measured free product in well or PLASTICITY _ piezometer INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO SILTS MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY FINE AND LESSIIDTHAN 50 LIMIT CLAANCSSAYNSDYCLAYS,SILTY CLAYS. Graphic Loc Contact GRAINED CLAYS SOILS ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY Distinct contact between soil strata or CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY geologic units _ Approximate location of soil strata US S)ILT~Y SOIOLSS OR change within a geologic soil unit MORE THAN 50% A OMACI EO PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE SILTS UOUIDUMIT INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH Material Description Contact fCH PLASTICITY AND YS GREATER THAN 50 Distinct contact between soil strata or CLA ORGANIC CLAYS AND SILTS OF geologic units MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY Approximate location of soil strata PEAT HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH change within a geologic soil unit HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTE: Multiple symbols are used to indicate borderline or dual soil classifications Laboratory / Field Tests Sampler Symbol Descriptions %F Percent fines AL Atterberg limits ® 2.4-inch I.D. split barrel CA Chemical analysis CP Laboratory compaction test Standard Penetration Test (SPT) CS Consolidation test DS Direct shear ■ Shelby tube HA Hydrometer analysis MC Moisture content ® Piston MD Moisture content and dry density OC Organic content PM Permeability or hydraulic conductivity U Direct-Push PP Pocket penetrometer SA Sieve analysis ® Bulk or grab TX Triaxial compression UC Unconfined compression VS Vane shear Blowcount is recorded for driven samplers as the number of blows required to advance sampler 12 inches (or Sheen Classification distance noted). See exploration log for hammer weight NS No Visible Sheen and drop. SS Slight Sheen A "P" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the MS Moderate Sheen drill rig. HS Heavy Sheen 9• NT Not Tested NOTE: The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text and the logs of explorations for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific exploration locations and at the time the explorations were made; they are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. KEY TO EXPLORATION LOGS GE4ENGINEERS FIGURE A-1 Start End Total 18 5 Logged By JCK Driller Holocene Drilling g, ' Drilled 3/25/2010 3/25/2010 Depth (ft) Checked By NLT Method Hollow-Stem Au er/SPT Surface Elevation (ft) 422 Hammer Automatic Drilling Track Rig D 50 Vertical Datum Data 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Equipment g Latitude System Groundwater Longitude Datum N/A Depth to Date Measured Water ft Elevation (ft'. Notes: Auger Data: 4-inches I.D. 3/25/2010 6 416 FIELD DATA d v E E MATERIAL 5 REMARKS w E o a a) m ~ 2 DESCRIPTION -CLE L u C N n 7 y N N ' N N O O lE6 N f0 N 2.T 5 a 2.'~ w O K m v to l- C7 (7 20 p g 0 11.1, SOD 6 inches sod/topsoil GP Brown gravel with sand (loose, moist) (fill) 0 Oxidation staining ayo SM Brownish gray silty sand with gravel (medium dense, moist) (ablation till) 18 20 1 12 SA; %F = 34 5- Q SM Gray silty fine sand with gravel (very dense, a^5 moist to wet) (lodgement till) 18 55 2 12 10 0 N 3 50/3" 3 w O w c7i 92 's ,5 w w Z Z w E 1 50/11, 4 r 2 m 0 'a g P 'm ~i w a 3 0 Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. 9 S Log of Boring B-1 Project: Trades Building Project Location: Green River Community College Figure G DENG I NEER w Project Number: 1406-009-00 Sheet 1 of 1 of 1 Start End Total 15.5 Logged By JCK Driller Holocene Method Hollow-stem Auger/SPT Drilled 3125/2010 3/25/2010 Depth (ft) Checked By NLT Surface Elevation ft Hammer Automatic Drilling Track Rig D 50 424 Data 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Equipment Vertical Datum Latitude System N/A Groundwater Depth to Longitude Datum Date Measured Water ft Elevation (ft) Not encountered Notes: Auger Data: 4-inches I.D. FIELD DATA d w ,Em 4E) m o MATERIAL ~ REMARKS Z p rn > Z J m DESCRIPTION O N w d N m J L n v -t Z > iu C U1 d 7 N a O > n o E m '[2 1 2 m 'o co t-'G ' U U ❑ W c Cc m U N 12 U' 060 o SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel (dense, moist) (ablation till) 10 39 1 11 ,yo o- 5 SM Gray silty fine sand with gravel (very dense, moist) (lodgement till) 10 50/4" 2 B ~h 10 0 ~d 0 ' 4 50/4" 3 8 w s cwj~ A^O 4 Sampler on large cobble or boulder 15- y 0 50/0" rc w w z u z w 0 w E F 2 E 'm 0 a u S S F z N f U a $ Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. o w 5 Log of Boring B-2 Project: Trades Building Project Location: Green River Community College Figure A-3 GWENGINEERS ,r w Project Number: 1406-009-00 Sheet 1 of 1 t Start End Total 18 Logged By JCK Drilling Drilled 3/25/2010 3/25/2010 Depth (ft) Checked By NLT Driller Holocene Method Hollow-stem Auger/SPT Surface Elevation (ft) 424 Hammer Automatic Drilling Track Rig D 50 Vertical Datum Data 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Equipment Latitude System Groundwater Longitude Datum N/A Depth to Date Measured Water ft Elevation (H; Notes: Auger Data: 4-inches 1. D. Not encountered FIELD DATA v m o MATERIAL N REMARKS -J M 'g Z' 2 2 d m J U DESCRIPTION i0 t > u c t a•yy- c d N d E N T ON W C m U NH 0 0U 2v o°- ° . SOD 6 inches sod/topsoil GM Brown silty gravel with sand (loose, moist) (fill) SM Red brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel and trace organic matter (loose to medium 12 13 I dense, moist) (fill?) 20 %F = 21 ayo SM Red to brown silty sand with gravel (dense, moist) (ablation till) 5 SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very dense, moist) (lodgement till) 5 50/5" 2 a 10 ❑ z Grades to silty fine sand with gravel x' 4 50/4" 3 U W f ui pr~0 15 w w z z ' w W 9 5 50/6" 4 n 2 39 E m~ 0 a' g u F 3 m U a 3 0 Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. 5 3 Log of Boring B-3 Project: Trades Building Project Location: Green River Community College GWENGINEERS Figure A-4 Project Number: 1406-009-00 Sheet 1 of 1 Start End Total 16 Logged By JCK Driller Holocene Drilling Hollow-stem Auger/SPT Drilled 3/25/2010 3125/2010 Depth (ft) Checked By NLT Method Surface Elevation (ft) Hammer Automatic Drilling Track Rig D 50 Vertical Datum 422 Data 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Equipment System Groundwater " Latitude N/A Depth to Longitude Datum Date Measured Water ft Elevation (ft) Notes: Auger Data: 4-inches I.D. Not encountered FIELD DATA m w E E m g MATERIAL REMARKS w 5 0 DESCRIPTION O o u N 0 L Q'y y d p L po Q N U 2 E N LO o r0 50 Z'E 0 - 11.1 0 C m u W F > t~ 0 L) ~ U t] 6 0 . SOD 6 inches sod/topsoil GM Brown sandy gravel (loose, moist) (fill) o SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel ati (medium dense, moist to wet) (ablation till) 4 23 ) SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very 5 dense, moist) (lodgement till) sh o10 50/3" 2 10 10 " o 5 50/5" 3 U W W l7 I W l` 15 N W t 50/t" 4 Z 2 W O w t7 E a E F m 0 'a t7 S z z N f U W a Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. 0 w Log of Boring B-4 Project: Trades Building a Project Location: Green River Community College GEoENGINEERS Fig of I Project Number: 1406-009-00 Sheet 1 1 of I d Start End Total 18 Logged By JCK Driller Holocene Drilling Hollow-stem Au er/SPT Drilled 3/25/2010 3/25/2010 Depth (ft) Checked By NLT Method g Surface Elevation (ft) Hammer Automatic Drilling Vertical Datum 420 Track Rig D 50 111 Data 140 (Ibs) / 30 (in) Drop Equipment Latitude System N/A Groundwater Longitude Datum Depth to Date Measured Water R Elevation (ft Notes: Auger Data: 4-inches I.D. 3/25/2010 8 412 FIELD DATA a v M o MATERIAL W 0 REMARKS J DESCRIPTION O J U U 7 L 2 > O C N a 7 y N 0~ N C d .2 8 4) 6 125 0. W o 5 12 m U yF 0v ^2U 08 0 SOD 6 inches sod/topsoil SM Dark brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel and trace organic matter (loose to medium dense, moist) (fill) 12 8 1 19 SA; %F = 42 s5 b 5 Grades to medium dense - likely not fill 0 27 2 Q Rock in shoe 0 a 10 SM Gray silty fine sand with gravel (very dense, wet) (lodgement till) 0 x' 4 SO/4" 3 14 W i W O w O S a~5 15 w w z 0 O w (7 g E 4 50/4" 4 10 2 E O 'a u iFg 3 U N H U W a 3 ❑ 0 Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. W S Log of Boring B-5 Project: Trades Building G EQ E N G I N E E R Project Location: Green River Community College Figure A-6 w Project Number: 1406-009-00 Sheet 1 of 1 Start End Total 18 Logged By JCK Driller Holocene Drilling Hollow-stem Auger/SPT Checked By NLT Method Drilled 3/26/2010 3126/2010 Depth (ft) I - J Surface Elevation (ft) Hammer Automatic Drilling Track Rig D 50 Vertical Datum 421 Data 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Equipment Latitude System N/A Groundwater Depth to Date Measured Water ft Elevation (ft) Longitude Datum Notes: Auger Data: 4-inches I.D. 3/26/2010 6 415 FIELD DATA d E E M o MATERIAL REMARKS w _ DESCRIPTION ' U C L O.(n N 0^ 00 N m N N O O E N m e 2n 0 D d w C, fY m u to 12 C7 0 U 0 SOD 6 inches sod/topsoil yo GM Dark brown silty gravel (loose, moist) (fill) a ' SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel 17 10 9 1 (loose, moist to wet) (fill?) s GM Gray silty fine sand with gravel to coarse gravel ^y Q with sand and silt (medium dense, wet) - (ablation till?) 12 34 2 10 SM Brown to gray silty fine to medium sand with trace gravel (dense to very dense, wet) pro (lodgement till) _ o 0 ' 3 50/3" 3 Becomes moist t? U W s W 22 15 N w p05 z u z W 0 w c7 6 50/6" 4 10 E ]r a F m O U' F z_ 9 S N r U W a g 0 Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. W _ W Log of Boring B-6 Project: Trades Building Project Location: Green River Community College GWENG I NEER Figure A-7 W Project Number: 1406-009-00 Sheet 1 of 1 Start ' End Total g Logged By JCK Driller Holocene Drilling Hollow-stem Auger/SPT Drilled 3/25/2010 3/25/2010 Depth (ft) Checked By NLT Method Surface Elevation (ft) 422 Hammer Automatic Drilling Track Rig D 50 Vertical Datum Data 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Equipment Latitude System N/A Groundwater Longitude Datum Depth to Date Measured Water ft Elevation (ft Notes: Auger Data: 4-inches I.D. 3/25/2010 6 416 FIELD DATA w v M o o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS '0 0 t `fin u E c t C o n•N ❑ m 0 -6 n E in ~d m c o cg W 13 m U r`n 1T S C7 U U 2 0 08 0 SOD 6 to 8 inches sod/topsoil SM Dark brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel and organic matter (very loose, moist o to wet) (fill) 18 2 1 29 SA; %F = 37 SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel (medium dense, moist) (ablation till?) 5 SM Gray silty fine sand with gravel (very dense, wet) (lodgement till) ~h rx 4 59 2 10 ❑ ~d N S U W f W O N R' W W 2 zz W O w C9 E t= E 6i m ❑ 'a 8 F z S N f U a g ❑ $ Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. 0 Log of Boring B-7 0 Project: Trades Building G EQ E N G I N E E R Project Location: Green River Community College Figure A-8 w Project Number: 1406-009-00 Sheet 1 of 1 Start End Total 9 Logged By JCK Driller Holocene Drilling Hollow-stem Auger/SPT Drilled 3/25/2010 3/25/2010 Depth (ft) Checked By NLT Method Surface Elevation (ft) Hammer Automatic Drilling Track Rig D 50 vertical Datum 421 Data 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Equipment System Groundwater - Latitude N/A Depth to Longitude Datum Date Measured Water ft Elevation (ft) Notes: Auger Data: 4-inches I.D. 3/25/2010 7.5 413.5 FIELD DATA m w _ JE. 6 m MATERIAL REMARKS o o DESCRIPTION > 8 m m m o W p i a) 2 0 (9 U L)00- CL SOD 6 inches sod/topsoil o GP Brown sandy gravel (loose, moist) (fill) r p O GW-GM Gray to brown gravel with silt and sand (medium 1 ° dense, moist) (ablation till?) 5 12 28 0 5- 0 ~h SM Dark gray silty fine sand with gravel (medium dense, wet) (ablation till) 2 24 10 25 ~d ❑ z a N 2 U W s w m N d' W W Z Z W O w m E a E m 'a O g F 3 N r U W a 3 O Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. 0 ❑ w 5 Log of Boring B-8 Project: Trades Building ° Project Location: Green River Community College W G EC) E N G I N E E R Figure A-9 Project Number: 1406-009-00 Sheet 1 of 1 Start End Total 10 Logged By JCK Driller Holocene Drilling Hollow-stem Au er/SPT Drilled 3/26/2010 3/26/2010 Depth (ft) Checked By NLT Method 9 Surface Elevation (ft) 419 Hammer Automatic Drilling Track Rig D 50 Vertical Datum Data 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Equipment Latitude System N/A Groundwater Depth to Longitude Datum Date Measured Water ft Elevation (ft. Notes: Auger Data: 4-inches I.D. 3/26/2010 6.5 412.5 FIELD DATA m w v z o o MATERIAL U) REMARKS N o o a DESCRIPTION m° ? > v C r Q 7 rn a~i O a ~ 2-1 cg _ E y m o " c .2 1 i1i 0 5~ m U to 12 (7 C9 U 2 0, CA 0 18 13 SOD 6 inches sod/topsoil SM Dark brown silty sand with gravel (medium dense, moist) (fill) 6 21 2 15 %F=30 18 64 3 SM Brown to gray silty sand with gravel (dense, 12 SA; %F = 33 y moist) (ablation till?) b 12 36 4 GM Brown silty gravel with sand (dense, moist) 5 (ablation till?) SM Brown to gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (medium dense to dense, wet) 18 30 5 (ablation till?) 14 SA; %F = 41 bo 10 51 6 SM Brownish gray silty fine sand with gravel (very dense, wet) (lodgement till) 10 a ~d 0 z a m S U W F O W O L O O N m W W 2 ZO W O W O fi E ti m D Qm ffi 9 N U a 3 0 Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. 0 Log of Boring B-9 Project: Trades Building Q G Eta E N G I N E E R Project Location: Green River Community College d Figure A-10 w Project Number: 1406-009-00 Sheet 1 of 1 t riller Holocene Drilling Hollow-stem Auger/SPT Start End Total 8 Logged By JCK DT [Drrtrfiilledcal 3/26/2010 3/26/2010 Depth (ft) Checked By NLT Method v ation (ft) Hammer Automatic Drilling Track Rig D 50 ace Ele Datum 433 Data 140 (lbs) / 30,(in) Drop Equipment titude System Groundwater N/A Depth to Longitude Datum Date Measured Water ft Elevation (ft) i Notes: Auger Data: 4-inches I.D. Not encountered FIELD DATA d i; o MATERIAL T REMARKS _ _ DESCRIPTION t N >Q 3 V 1) C' Q j 'tll 4 m a) N " ..'O E N ~p c O N 0 Oc 4) - CU lL Da N n D c .0: U to F -U` - U' U rC U 0 Cg 2inches 5/8-inch minus crushed rock SM Brownish gray silty sand with gravel and lenses of fine sand (dense, moist) (ablation till) So 16 41 1 16 a 5 SM Brown/gray silty fine sand with gravel (very dense, moist) (lodgement till) ~h 3 50/3" 2 b i ❑ ~d N U W H O w l7 w r ❑ N K W W Z O Z W O W O dg . G f 2 E D 'a S F 3 N r U W a 0 o Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. w Log of Boring B-10 Project: Trades Building Project Location: Green River Community College Eta N C_i N E E R S Figure A-11 w Project Number: 1406=009-00 _ Sheet 1 of 1 t , t t ~Ry~w~.ermsaar~~y 0 ..tom , 7.7 APPENDIX •Laborator Testing % ~ sr r i , r x , r c K ,a r 1h i f .r t i PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Auburn, Washington APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING General Soil samples obtained from the explorations were transported to our laboratory and examined to confirm or modify field classifications, as well as to evaluate engineering and index properties of the soil samples. Representative samples were selected for laboratory testing. consisting of moisture content determinations, percent fines content, and sieve analyses. The tests were performed in general accordance with test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other, applicable procedures. Soil Classifications Soil samples obtained from the explorations were visually classified in the field and/or in our laboratory using a system based on. the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM classification methods. The soil samples were visually classified in general accordance with ASTM . Test Method D 2488, while the general methodology of ASTM D 2487 was used to classify the soils based on laboratory tests results. . These classification procedures are incorporated in the exploration logs shown in Figures A-2 through A-11 in Appendix A. Moisture Content Determinations Moisture contents tests were completed in general accordance with ASTM D 2216 for representative samples obtained from the explorations. The results of these tests-are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A at the respective sample depth. Percent Passing U.S. No. 200 Sieve Samples from boring B-3 and boring B-9 were "washed" through the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve to determine the relative percentage of coarse and fine-grained. particles in -''thesoil. The percent passing value represents the percentage by weight of the sample finer than the U.S. No. 200 sieve. This test was conducted to'verify field descriptions and to determine-the fines content for analysis purposes. The test was conducted. in general accordance with ASTM D 1140, and the results are shown on the boring logs at the respective sample depth. Sieve Analyses Sieve analyses were performed on five soil samples in general accordance with ASTM D 422. The wet sieve analysis method was ,used to determine the percentage of soil greater than the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve. The results of the grain size analyses were plotted, classified in general accordance with the USCS, and are presented in Figures B-1 and B-2. GEOENGINEERS~ June 3, 2010-• Page B-1 File No. 1406-009-00 r wr~sw~ww~w i . 1406-009-00 AMD/AKL:RBM:AMD 04-05-2010 (Sieve.ppt) ° U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE ^ 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 M 100 Q M 90 C► 80 Z = M w 70 M m 60 p [ , r~~ z 50 < 40 Z 30 W U W 20 0- 10 41=. .1 iLLL N m 0 0.1 0.01 0.001 M 1000 100 10 1 z GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS M N W Vi GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY 21 m COBBLES COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE N C i 17- N SYMBOL EXPLORATION DEPTH SOIL CLASSIFICATION NUMBER ft B-1 3 Silty sand with gravel (SM) B 5 3 Silty sand (SM) 0 B-7 3 Silty fine to medium sand with gravel (SM) 1406-009-00 XXX:rbm:)= 04-02-2010 (Sieve.ppt) U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 410 #20 #40 #60 #100 4200 O 100 M 90 z 80 Z = M W 70 LA m 60 z 50 CD a 40 t- w 30 U W 20 a 10 N 0 Fn M 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 M 7! z GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS c r M M W Fn GRAVEL SAND N ;a COBBLES SILT OR CLAY M COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE N C r N SYMBOL EXPLORATION DEPTH SOIL CLASSIFICATION NUMBER ft B-9 3-41/2 Silty sand with gravel (SM) I] B-9 7 - 81/2 Silty fine to medium sand with gravel (SM) t, r t r i i~ `j APPENDIX C w t Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use . l m : r ~ ry \ 3 \ wne m .rram n a Ky.. 4 r/ s i ~ i " antra.., _ r' x , b i - - ~ a u x g ~ ~ _,.r.-. `vim' \ - ~a it PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Auburn, Washington ' APPENDIX C REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE1 This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report. Geotechnical Services Are Performed For Specific Purposes, Persons And Projects This report has been prepared for use by S. M. Stemper Architects, Green River Community College, and other members of the project team for design of the proposed Trades Building project. This report may be made available to prospective contractors for bidding or estimating purposes; but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. This report is not intended for use by others, and the information contained herein is not applicable to other sites. GeoEngineers structures our services to meet the specific needs of our clients. For example, a geotechnical or geologic study conducted for a civil engineer or architect may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer or architect that are involved in the same project. Because each geotechnical or geologic study is unique, each geotechnical -engineering or geologic report is unique, prepared solely for the specific client and project site. No one except S. M. Stemper Architects, Green River Community College, and other members of the design team should rely on this report without first conferring with GeoEngineers. This report should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. A Geotechnical Engineering Or Geologic Report Is Based On A Unique Set Of Project- Specific Factors This report has been prepared for the proposed Trades Building project at Green River Community College in Auburn, Washington. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on this report if it was: ■ not prepared for you, ■ not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect: ® the function of the proposed structure; ■ elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure; ■ composition of the design team; or ■ project ownership. 1 Developed based on material provided by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences; www.asfe.org. GEOENGINEERS~ June 3, 2010 Page C-1 File No. 1406-009-00 PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Auburn, Washington If important changes are made after the date of this report, GeoEngineers should be given the opportunity to review our interpretations and recommendations and provide written modifications or confirmation, as appropriate. Subsurface Conditions Can Change This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by manmade events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact GeoEngineers before applying a report to determine if it remains applicable. Most Geotechnical and Geologic Findings are Professional Opinions Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced sampling locations at the site. Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data and then applied our professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in this report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Geotechnical Engineering Report Recommendations are Not (Final Do not over-rely on the preliminary construction recommendations included in this report. These recommendations are not final, because they were developed principally from GeoEngineers' professional judgment and opinion. GeoEngineers' recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers cannot assume responsibility or liability for this report's recommendations if we do not perform construction observation. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by GeoEngineers should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities are completed in accordance with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for this project is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Could Be Subject to Misinterpretation Misinterpretation of this report by other design team members can result in costly problems. You could lower that risk by having GeoEngineers confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain GeoEngineers to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering or geologic report. Reduce that risk by having GeoEngineers participate in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Page C-2 June 3, 2010 GeoEngineers, Inc. rife No, 1400.009-00 PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Auburn, Washington , Do not Redraw the Exploration Logs Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering or geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with GeoEngineers and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A pre-bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might an owner be in a position to give contractors the best information available, while requiring them to at least share the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Further, a contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in your project budget and schedule. Contractors Are Responsible For Site Safety on Their Own Construction Projects Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's procedures, methods, schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for managing construction operations to minimize risks to on-site personnel and to adjacent properties. Read These Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals and contractors may not recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering or geology) are far less exact than other engineering and natural science disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that could lead to disappointments, claims and disputes. GeoEngineers includes these explanatory "limitations" provisions in our reports to help reduce such risks. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you are unclear how these "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" apply to your project or site. Geotechnical, Geologic and Environmental Reports Should Not Be Interchanged The equipment, techniques and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study and vice versa. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic concerns regarding a specific project. GEOENGINEERS 1une3,2010 PageC-3 File No. 1406-009-00 PROPOSED TRADES BUILDING, GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Aubum, Washington Biological Pollutants i GeoEngineers' Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, or assessment of the presence of Biological Compounds which are Pollutants in or around any structure. Accordingly, this report includes no interpretations, recommendations, findings, or conclusions for the purpose of detecting, assessing, or abating Biological Pollutants. The term "Biological Pollutants" includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts. i eers, Inc. Page C-4 June 3, 2010 GeoEngin File No, 1406-009-00 t , ,o Ga u~ ` 1~ JB~ -1 Sr. a Phase ~ Envivonmental Me Assessment -,-r Lea Hill Park SE 320th Street and 124th Avenue SE Auburn, Washington for Deem River Community oflege May 19, 2010 0 0 0 ~~~GJOa[GG~~ r Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Lea Hill Park SE 320th Street and 1241h Avenue SE Auburn, Washington for Green River Community College May 19, 2010 GEOENGINEER' 8410 154th Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 425.861.6000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Lea Hill Park SE 320th Street and 124th Avenue SE Auburn, Washington File No. 1406-009-01 May 19, 2010 Prepared for: Washington State Dept. of General Administration Division of Engineering & Architectural Services 206 General Administration Building PO Box 41012 Olympia, Washington 98504-1012 Attention: Phil Timpke Prepared by: GeoEngineers, Inc. 8410 154th Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 425.861.6000 DECLARATIONS ■ "I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in Sec. 312.10 of 40 CFR Part312."* ■ "I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. I performed and/or developed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312."* *A person who does not qualify as an Environmental Professional may assist in the conduct of all appropriate Inquiries in accordance v~ithA$TKEJ,,1,~ r, 1527-05, if such person is under the supervision or responsible charge of a person meeting the definition of an environmental prof~SSlbrla~ whit > a conducting such activities. S ~'.ry JTtA t"A Jessica Robertson, LG Dana Carlisle, PE Project Manager Principal ,;;y, cc: Jerry Osborn, AIA, S.M. Stemper Architects 4000 Delridge Way SW, Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98106 i JAR:DLC:Iw sha repoi nt\finais\140600901lea hillesa.doc Copyright© 2010 by GeoEngineers, Inc. All rights reserved. Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsihrlle or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. GWENGINEER~ f ~ T^ Table of Contents ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Phase I Scope of Services ........................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Special Considerations .............................................................................................................................................3 1.3 Qualifications of Environmental Professional .........................................................................................................3 2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION .....................................................................................................................3 2.1 Involved Parties ........................................................................................................................................................3 2.2 Location, Legal Description and Setting ..................................................................................................................3 2.3 Site Reconnaissance ................................................................................................................................................4 2.3.1 Summary of Observations .............................................................................................................................4 2.3.2 Findings ..........................................................................................................................................................7 2.3.3 Data Gaps ......................................................................................................................................................7 2.4 Adjacent Property and Vicinity Observations 7 2.4.1 Summary of Observations .............................................................................................................................7 2.4.2 Findings ..........................................................................................................................................................7 2.4.3 Data Gaps ......................................................................................................................................................7 2.5 Previous Reports .....................................................................................................................................................8 2.5.1 Summary of Previous Reports ......................................................................................................................8 2.5.2 Findings ..........................................................................................................................................................8 2.5.3 Data Gaps ......................................................................................................................................................8 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS REVIEW .................................................................................................8 3.1 Database Search ......................................................................................................................................................8 3.2 Review of Regulatory Files .......................................................................................................................................9 3.3 Review of Areawide Contamination Reports .........................................................................................................10 3.4 Findings ....................................................................................................................................................................10 3.5 Data Gaps ...............................................................................................................................................................11 4.0 PROPERTY HISTORY ...........................................................................................................................11 4.1 Historical Resources ...............................................................................................................................................11 4.2 Historical Property Ownership and Use Summary ................................................................................................12 4.3 Adjacent Properties ................................................................................................................................................13 4.4 Environmental Liens or Property Use Restrictions ................................................................................................13 4.5 Information Provided by User/User Obligations ....................................................................................................13 4.6 Findings ...................................................................................................................................................................13 4.7 Data Gaps ...............................................................................................................................................................13 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................14 6.0 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................................14 7.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................15 Cvlay 19, 2010 Page i CEOENGINEER File No. 1406-009-01 i y LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Plan Figure 3 Representative Site Photographs APPENDICES Appendix A. Completed User Questionnaire Appendix B. Title Report and Legal Description Appendix C. Parcel Insight, Inc. (PI) Report Appendix D. Selected Historical Research Documents Appendix E. Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use y+r"'4 Page ii May 19, 2010 Geo£ngineers, Inc. Fite No. 1406-609-01 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AAI - All Appropriate Inquiries AST - aboveground storage tank ASTM - ASTM International CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act Ecology - Washington State Department of Ecology EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA - Environmental Site Assessment HREC - historical recognized environmental condition LG - licensed geologist MTCA - Model Toxics Control Act PCBs - polychlorinated biphenyls r PE - Professional Engineer ppm - parts per million REC - recognized environmental condition USGS - United States Geological Survey UST - underground storage tank April 29, 2010 Page iii GWENGINEERS~ File No. 1405.009.02 Lea Hill Park Phase I ESA Auburn, Washington EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GeoEngineers has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in general conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-05 of the Lea Hill Park property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of SE 320th Street and 124th Avenue SE in Auburn, Washington. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.2 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the subject property except for the following: ■ A previous small residential building at the property used an oil-burning heating system. The approximate location of the prior house is shown in Figure 2. The size and location of the heating oil tank (aboveground or underground) associated with the oil-burning heating system could not be confirmed from any of the historical resources available for this study. We were unable to confirm whether a prior residential heating oil UST (if any) was removed prior to redevelopment of the subject property as Lea Hill Park. Therefore, there is a possibility that a buried heating oil UST that was formerly associated with the previous residential building may remain beneath the subject property surface. None of our recent geotechnical test pit explorations were located in close proximity to the former residence; three of the test pits were located approximately 100 to 150 feet northeast, southeast, and southwest of the location of the former house. No staining or odors indicative of petroleum releases were observed on the soil samples from any of our recent geotechnical explorations. In our opinion, there is a low to moderate risk of soil, groundwater or surface water contamination by hazardous substances at the subject property in areas where historical heating oil USTs may still be present. Additional study, such as geophysical evaluation and/or subsurface explorations, would be needed to more fully evaluate the potential for the presence of heating oil USTs and/or associated contamination at the subject property. This Executive Summary should be used only in the context of the full report for which it is intended. Flay 1t9, 2010 Page ES-1 GEDENGINEER File No 1406-009-01 Lea Hill Patk Phase I ESA Auburn, Washington 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the Lea Hill Park property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of SE 320th Street and 124th Avenue SE in Auburn, Washington. The property, referred to herein as the "subject property," is currently a City of Auburn recreational park developed with ballfields, tennis courts and a playground. The subject property is shown relative to surrounding physical features on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The layout of the subject property and surrounding properties is shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. GeoEngineers also recently completed a geotechnical engineering study for the subject property. The results of the geotechnical engineering study are reported separately. Our study was completed at the request of Jerry Osborn of S.M. Stemper Architects on behalf of the Washington State Department of General Administration (Washington GA) and the Green River Community College (GRCC). We understand that the City of Auburn currently owns the subject property. We also understand that Green River Community College (GRCC) is considering purchasing and redeveloping the subject property, including construction of an academic building. We further understand that the results of this Phase I ESA will be used by GRCC and the project team as part of their evaluation of potential environmental liabilities associated with ownership and redevelopment of the subject property. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Washington GA, GRCC and their authorized agents. Because this environmental report is not intended for use by others, no one except Washington GA and the GRCC should rely on this report without first conferring with GeoEngineers. 1.1 Phase I Scope of Services The purpose of this Phase I ESA is to identify recognized environmental conditions, (RECs) in connection with the subject property. Our scope of services is in general accordance with ASTM International (ASTM) Standard E 1527-05 for Phase I ESAs and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Federal Standard 40 CFR Part 312 "Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI)," which are intended to permit a user to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner, contiguous property owner or bona fide prospective purchaser limitations on liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The standard outlines the practice that constitutes "all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice" as defined by 42 U.S.C. §9601. Our services, described below, were completed in general accordance with our proposal dated February 19, 2010. These services were completed by, or under the direction of, an environmental professional as described in 40 CFR Part 312. 1 Recognized environmental conditions are defined in ASTM E 1527-05 as "the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater or surface water of the property. The term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies-" GEoENGINEERS rdi May 19.2010 I Pagel Fife No. 1400.009-01 . Lea Hill Park Phase I ESA Auburn, Washington Our specific scope of services for this Phase I ESA was as follows: 1. Review readily available geotechnical reports, environmental reports and/or other relevant -documents pertaining to environmental conditions at the subject property. 2. Review the results of a federal, state, local and tribal environmental database search provided by an outside environmental data service for listings of properties with known or suspected environmental concerns on or near the subject property within the search distances specified by ASTM. Our database and file review search also included a review of EPA and Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) websites for readily available information (publications and reports) concerning areawide soil and groundwater contamination on or adjacent to the subject property. 3. Review regulatory agency files regarding listed properties of potential environmental concern relative to the subject property. 4. Identify a key site manager with specific knowledge of past and present property use and request that the key site manager meet a GeoEngineers' representative on-site for an interview during the visual site reconnaissance and/or an interview by telephone if he or she is not available during the site reconnaissance. We also identified and interviewed others familiar with the use and history of the subject property, as available and appropriate, including representatives of current occupants that likely use, store, treat, handle or dispose of hazardous substances now or in the past. 5. Interview current owners or occupants of neighboring properties as necessary to gather information or fill property use data gaps regarding the subject property. 6. Interview past owners and occupants of the subject property as necessary to gather information or fill property use data gaps regarding property use history. 7. Interview a representative of the local fire department, health department and/or Ecology as necessary to gather information or fill data gaps regarding the history of the subject property and surrounding properties relative to the likely presence of hazardous substances. 8. Review historical aerial photographs, fire insurance maps, building department records, city directories, chain-of-title reports, and land use and tax assessor records, as available and appropriate, to identify past development history on and adjacent to the subject property relative to the possible use, generation, storage, release or disposal of hazardous substances. We attempted to identify uses of the subject property from the present back to the time that records show no apparent structures on the subject property, back to the time that the property was first used for residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial or governmental purposes, or back to 1940, whichever is earliest. 9. Review current United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps to identify the physiographic setting of the subject property and provide a statement on the local geologic, soil and groundwater conditions based on our general experience and sources such as geologic maps and soil surveys. 10. Conduct a visual reconnaissance of the subject property and adjacent properties to identify visible evidence of RECs. Page 2 May 19, 2010 GeaEngineers, lnc. File 4a. 1106-009-01 Lea Hill Park Phase I ESA Aubum, Washington 11. Identify the source(s) of potable water for the subject property and current heating and sewage disposal system(s) used at the subject property, if any, and their age if readily ascertainable. 12. Identify data gaps relative to the Phase I ESA study findings. 13. Provide a written summary of the Phase I ESA results and identified RECs along with our opinion and recommendations regarding the potential for contamination by hazardous substances at the subject property and the significance of any data gaps identified. .2 Special Considerations Our scope of services did not include an environmental compliance audit or an evaluation for the presence of lead-based paint, toxic mold, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in light ballasts, radon, lead in drinking water, asbestos-containing building materials, urea-formaldehyde insulation in on-site structures or debris or other potentially hazardous building materials. Soil, groundwater or surface water sampling was not part of our Phase I ESA services. Our scope of services does not include an assessment of vapor intrusion into structures on the property per ASTM Standard E 2600-08. 1.3 Qualifications of Environmental Professional Dana Carlisle is a registered Professional Engineer (PE) in Washington (#29634) and has at least 10 years of full-time experience doing Phase I ESAs. Dana is an Environmental Professional per 40 CFR Part 312. Jessica Robertson is a licensed geologist (LG) in Washington (#2570) and has at least 5 years of experience doing Phase I ESAs. Jessica is an Environmental Professional per 40 CFR Part 312. 2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 2.1 Involved Parties The subject property currently is owned by the City of Auburn. GRCC is considering purchase and redevelopment of the subject property, including construction of an academic building. . Location, Legal Description and Setting General information, property use(s) and environmental setting of the subject property area are summarized in Table I below. The location is shown relative to surrounding physical features in Figure 1. The current layout of the subject property and surrounding property uses are shown in Figure 2. Photographs of the subject property are shown in Figures 3 and 4. GMENGINEERS ra May 19, 20 10 ` Page 3 File No. 1400-409-01, Lea Hill Park Phase I ESA Auburn, Washington , TABLE I. SUBJECT PROPERTY INFORMATION USGS. 7.5 minute Auburn, Washington, topographic Topographic Map quadrangle map dated 1994 Quarter/Quarter, Section, Township and Range SE quarter of SW quarter of Section 9. Township 21, Range 5, Willamette Meridian Address No street address established Northwest corner of the intersection of SE 320th Street and General Location 124th Avenue SE in Auburn, King County, Washington S 1/2 OF BE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 LESS CO RDS LESS POR LY WLY OF FOLG DESC LN BEG NXN N MGN BE 320TH ST & E MGN PLAT LEA HILL VILLAGE DIV #1 TH NLY ALG ELY MGN Legal Description 122ND AVE BE TO NE COR SP PLAT TH N 03-01-75 E 75 FT TH S 88-45-00 E 92 FT TH N 01-10-00 W 178.84 FT TH N 86- 44-10 W TO BE COR LOT 75 LEA HILL VILLAGE DIV 3-A TH N ALG ELY MGN SD PLAT TO N LN SD SUBD (per King County iMAP) Tax Parcel Number King County tax parcel number 0921059020 Approximate Area 8 97 acres Existing Use(s) Municipal recreation park Geologic Setting Puget Lowland A small tributary of Soos Creek is located approximately 1,000 feet southeast of the subject property. Soos Creek Nearest Surface Water Bodies flows to the southwest and converges with the Green River approximately one mile south of the subject property. Approximate Surface Elevation 425 feet above mean sea level per King County WAP Silty sand with gravel typical of glacial till deposits, based Soil and Geologic Conditions on our recent geotechnical explorations for the subject property Shallow groundwater was encountered within 10 feet of the Depth to Groundwater ground surface in several recent geotechnical explorations for the subject property. Inferred Direction of Shallow Groundwater Flow To the south or southeast. based on surface topography Our knowledge of the general physiographic setting, geology and groundwater occurrence in the vicinity of the subject property is based on our review of the maps listed above, our recent geotechnical explorations at the subject property, and our general experience in the area. 2.3 Site Reconnaissance 2.3.1 Summary of Observations A representative of GeoEngineers performed a visual reconnaissance of the subject property on April 16, 2010. City of Auburn Parks Director Daryll Faber was identified as a "key site manager" with knowledge of property use and was interviewed by telephone on April 21, 2010. Our interview with Mr. Faber is summarized in Section 4.0. Page 4 May 19, 2010 GeoEngineers. Inc, rife No. 3,106-009.01, Lea Hill Park Phase I ESA Aubum, Washington The subject property was accessed from the entrance drive off 122nd Avenue SE. The properly is currently developed with recreational fields and a small playground; no permanent buildings are located on the property. Our visual reconnaissance focused on the areas where hazardous substance use, storage and/or disposal was possible, based on our experience. Table II below summarizes conditions observed during our site reconnaissance. Section 2.3.2 contains a summary list of potential RECs identified by this portion of our study. The approximate locations of the observed features discussed in this section are shown in Figure 2. Photographs of the subject property were taken to document observations made during our reconnaissance and are presented in Figures 3 and 4. TABLE II. SUMMARY OF SITE RECONNAISANCE OBSERVATIONS Observed Features Comment Yes No Structures (existing) X The subject property is developed with two baseball fields, two tennis courts and a small playground. There are essentially no permanent structures. We did observe ball field backstops and fencing on the property. Two large meta shipping containers are used as equipment storage sheds for recreational equipment and park maintenance tools and equipment. The interior of the shipping containers are not on bare ground., the containers have their own metal surface floor. Two gravel parking lots are located on the west and east sides of the subject property. There are no restroom buildings on the property. Structures (evidence of former) X Heating/Cooling System X Floor Drains. Sumps or Drywells X Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) X Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) or x Evidence of USTs Drums or Other Containers X Chemicals or Hazardous Materials (other x than de minimis quantities of cleaning products) Evidence of Leaks, Spills or Releases X Surrounding ASTs, USTs and/or Chemical Storage Areas Stained or Corroded Floors, Walls or Drains x (other than apparent water stains or minor oil stains on pavementfrom parked vehicles) Pipes of Unknown Origin or Use X GEOENGINEENsr/) May 19, 2010 i Page 5 File No. 1400-009-01. Lea Hill Park Phase I ESA Aubum, Washington On-site Septic System X Sewage Disposal System X Potable Water Supply X Municipal water connection currently used for irrigation of park fields. Solid Waste Refuse Dumpsters X Hydraulic Hoists X Oil/Water Separators X Discolored or Stained Soil or Vegetation X Potentially from Hazardous Substances Hazardous Waste Disposal Areas X Uncontained Debris, Refuse or Unidentified X Waste Materials Standing Water or Other Liquids X A delineated wetland is located in the southeast corner of the subject property No standing water was visible in accessible areas of the wetland during our site reconnaissance. Catch Basins and Stormwater Drainage See above regarding wetland drainage. One x municipal catch basin was observed in the east parking area. This catch basin is likely connected to the municipal stormwater system Pits/Ponds/Lagoons X Waste or Wastewater Discharges X Unusual Odors X Stressed Vegetation X Fill Material X Water Wells (agricultural, domestic, x monitoring) Pad-Mounted Transformers X Pole-Mounted Transformers Pole-mounted electrical transformers are mounted on utility poles along 124u+ Avenue SE. The devices did not contain visible "no-PCB" stickers. No staining x indicative of leaks or spills from the devices was visible on or around the utility poles. therefore, pole- mounted transformers are not considered an environmental concern for the subject property- Other Conditions of Environmental Concern X Page 6 May 1J, 2010 GeoEngineers. Inc. File No. 1406:-009.01. -Lea Hill Park Phase 1 ESA Auburn, Washington 2.3.2 Findings Potential RECs were not identified by this portion of the study. 2.3.3 Data Gaps Data gaps were not identified by this portion of the study. 2.4 Adjacent Proper and Vicinity Observations 2.4.1 Summary of Observations We viewed properties located adjacent to and surrounding the subject property on April 16, 2010, from accessible public rights-of-way and the subject property. We did not enter adjacent properties or buildings. The subject property generally is situated in an area that is developed with residential and educational campus uses. Section 2.4.2 contains a list of potential RECs identified by this portion of our study. Table III below outlines adjacent land uses and pertinent observations with respect to conditions that could pose a REC on the subject property, if any. Figure 2 shows adjacent property uses and locations in relation to the subject property. TABLE III. ADJOINING STREETS AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES OBSERVATIONS Direction Adjoining Street Position Relative to Adjacent Property and Use Comments Subject Propertyl North None Upgradient Residential and Day Care ~r\ Green River Community College South SE 320th Street Downgradient campus East 1241h Avenue SE Crossgradient Residential West 122nd Avenue SE Crossgradient Residential N ote: 1 The inferred shallow groundwater flow direction in the vicinity of the subject property is toward the south or southeast, as described in Section 2.2. 2.4.2 Findings Potential RECs were not identified by this portion of the study. 2.4.3 Data Gaps Data gaps were not identified by this portion of the study with the exception of the following: a The basic property research conducted for this study did not provide readily available information regarding the past or present use of heating oil UST or AST systems on the adjacent properties. This data gap is not considered significant because current or past use of heating oil on these properties is assumed to be a likely possibility on at least some properties. However, we do not consider current or past use of heating oil on adjacent properties to be a REC for the subject property based on the presence of glacial till beneath the site, the low density of adjacent residential housing and the age of nearby housing. GMENGINEERS.~g May 19.2010 Page 7 Tile No. 1400~009-01 Lea Hill Park Phase I ESA Auburn, Washington . Previous Reports 2.5.1 Summary of Previous Reports GeoEngineers recently completed geotechnical explorations at the subject property; our geotechnical report is submitted under separate cover. Nine exploratory borings were completed to depths ranging from approximately 8 to 18.5 feet below ground surface. All borings encountered 5 feet or less of sandy fill material underlain by silty sand glacial till material. Groundwater was encountered in five of the nine borings at depths ranging from 6 to 8 feet below ground surface. No odors or staining indicative of petroleum contamination or hazardous substances was observed on the soil samples obtained from the geotechnical borings. GeoEngineers also previously completed geotechnical explorations along adjacent 124th Avenue SE. These explorations, described in our report dated February 10, 2010, included seven test pits completed in areas of 124th Avenue SE and SE 316th Street, north of and east-adjacent to the subject property, respectively. The seven test pits were completed to maximum depths of between 3.5 and 6 feet below ground surface and encountered silty sand glacial till material similar to that encountered within the subject property. Groundwater was encountered in five of the test pits at depths ranging from 1.5 to 5 feet below ground surface. No odors or staining indicative of petroleum contamination or hazardous substances was observed on the soil samples obtained from the geotechnical test pits. No other previous geotechnical or environmental reports were identified for the subject property. 2.5.2 Findings Potential RECs were not identified by this portion of the study. 2.5.3 Data Gaps Data gaps were not identified by this portion of the study. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS REVIEW 3.1 Database Search GeoEngineers reviewed the results of a search of pertinent environmental regulatory lists and databases for current or previous facilities listed at addresses located within ASTM-specified distances from the subject property. The search was performed on March 25, 2010. The information reviewed was provided by a subcontracted regulatory list search service, Parcel Insight, Inc. (PI). The PI report is presented in Appendix C. The report includes details regarding the listed facilities identified and maps showing the approximate locations of the listed facilities relative to the subject property. GeoEngineers reviewed the search results for listings pertaining to the subject property. GeoEngineers also reviewed PI listing of database entries that could not be mapped by PI because of insufficient addresses (non-exact matches). Off-site facilities found within the specified distances from the subject property were evaluated for potential impact to the subject property. Page 8 May 19, 2010 GeoEngineers, lne. File No. 1406-009-01 Lea Hill Park Phase 1 ESA Auburn, Washington The subject property was not listed. Table IV below summarizes the listed facilities that in our opinion could pose a REC to the subject property. Other listed facilities identified in Appendix C either are located a significant distance from the subject property or are located in an inferred down- or crossgradient position relative to the subject property and are unlikely to pose a potential environmental concern to the subject property, in our opinion. TABLE IV. SUMMARY OF REGULATORY DATABASE SEARCH LISTINGS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN Location Listed Business Listed Address Regulatory Database Description Database information indicates Adjacent, approximately Green River Underground Storage that multiple USTs have been 50 feet south Community 12401 SE 320th Tank (UST) and located at the GRCC property. Street, Auburn. WA UST (LUST) We reviewed Ecology files for across SE 320th College Leaking Street this property as discussed in Section 3.2 below. Database information indicates that metals, petroleum Upgradient, Confirmed and 12220 5E 3161h Suspected products and solvents are approximately Belden Property Street suspected to be present at the 700 feet north . Auburn. WA Contaminated Sites Li property We reviewed Ecology List (CSCSL) files for this property as discussed in Section 3.2 below. . Review of Regulatory Files We reviewed Ecology's files for the listings identified in Section 3.1. Our file review was performed on April 1, 2010. A summary of pertinent information follows. Green River Community College, 12401 SE 320th Street, Auburn, Washington The GRCC campus that is the facility listed in Ecology's database as a leaking UST site is located approximately 50 feet south of the subject property. Ecology files for GRCC contained documents regarding the 1992 closure of 11 petroleum USTs located on the GRCC campus. The nearest UST was located more than 150 feet from the subject property. Based on available documentation regarding GRCC's UST closure activities, it appears that residual petroleum-impacted soil remained at only one of the UST excavation locations; this impacted soil had not been removed because of the close proximity of the UST to a concrete building foundation. Based on the distance of more than 150 feet between the removed USTs and the subject property, the available documentation that contamination from USTs had not migrated into groundwater, and the likely downgradient location of the GRCC campus site in relation to the subject property, the GRCC campus site is not currently considered a REC to the subject property. Belden Property, 12220 SE 316th Street, Auburn, Washington The Belden property is located approximately 700 feet to the north of the subject property, across SE 316th Street. GEOENGINEERS May 19.2010 ' Page9 File No. 1401-040.01, Lea Hill Park Phase I ESA Auburn, Washington According to documents in the Ecology file, Ecology received a complaint in April 1999 that ro approximately 80 used vehicles were stored in a field on the property and potentially leaking petroleum to the soil surface. The complaint was referred to the King County Public Health Department (KCPHD), and KCPHD notified property owner Mr. Dennis Belden in March 2002 that a Site Hazard Assessment would be conducted. KCPHD conducted a site visit at the Belden property in May 2002. During the site visit, KCPHD noted several areas of potential environmental concern including junked cars, empty and full drums, car batteries, a creosote storage area and a low-elevation area that contained a stormwater culvert flowing south beneath SE 316th Street. KCPHD obtained five surface soil samples from various locations on the property in May 2002. The soil samples were analyzed for metals, diesel-range petroleum products and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Results indicated that concentrations of the carcinogenic PAH benzo[a]pyrene in soil samples from the vicinity of creosote storage drums were greater than'the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Method A cleanup level. Subsequently, the property owner Mr. Belden reportedly conducted remediation of impacted soil by hand-excavating the impacted soil from the vicinity of the creosote drums. According to documentation in the Ecology file, the excavated impacted soil was placed into 55-gallon drums that were stored on Belden's property. In November 2002, KCPHD conducted a second follow-up site investigation and sampled soil in the vicinity of the soil excavation. The November 2002 sampling indicated that concentrations of benzo[a]pyrene still remained greater than MTCA Method A cleanup level in soil samples after the Belden's excavation. In 2003, Mr. Belden entered the site into Ecology's Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) and retained an environmental consultant (Kleen Environmental Technologies, Inc. [KET]) to conduct additional assessment and cleanup work at the property on his behalf. KET issued a summary report that presented the results of KCPHD's investigations at the property. KET also prepared a sampling and analysis plan in May 2003 for future work to be performed. The May 2003 documents were the most current documents in Ecology's file. Ecology files do not include any documents that indicate additional work was completed at the Belden property, and Ecology removed the Belden property from the VCP in 2006 because no work had been completed. Based on the distance to the subject property and the available information, the Belden property is not currently considered a REC to the subject property. . Review o Areawide Contamination Reports We conducted a search of Ecology and EPA websites for readily available information (publications and reports) that may concern areawide soil and groundwater contamination on or adjacent to the subject property. Areawide contamination reports pertaining to the subject property vicinity were not identified. 3.4 Findings Potential RECs were not identified by this portion of the study. Page 10 May l9, 2010 GeoEngineers, inc. File No. 1406-009-01 Lea Hill Palk Phase I ESA Auburn, Washington 3.5 Data Gaps c 1 Data gaps were not identified for this portion of the study. 4.0 PROPERTY HISTORY 4.1 Historical Resources Our understanding of the history of the subject property is based on a review, of the information from the historical resources listed in Table V and interviews with the individuals listed. Selected historical research documents are included in Appendix D. TABLE V. HISTORICAL RESOURCES REVIEWED Dates of Coverage or Provider or Date Reviewed Comment Description Dates of Knowledge or Contacted (See Section 4.2 for findings) Interviewee the Property of [ Historical Aerial Photo- pl 1944, 1965. 1974 03/30/2010 1985, 1994 and 2001 graphs' F Historical King County 1936, 1998, 2000, Aerial Photo 04/09/2010 NAP 2002, 2005 and 2007 graphs' GeoEngineers Historical Fire search of Sanborn Fire Insurance maps do not Insurance n/a 04/11/2010 Sanborn maps exist for the subject property vicinity. Maps at public library Historical Tax Washington Assessors 1938 to 1973 04/09/2010 11 State Archives Records Historical PI search of Kroll c. 1912, c. 1930, 03/31/2010 County Atlases maps c. 1950 and c. 2002 1958. 1961. 1968, Historical City PI search at 1976. 1980, 1985, 03/31/2010 Directories public libraries 1990. 1997, 2003 and 2009 FHisto ical. Topographic 'PI search 1994 04/20/2010 ,Maps Pacific Title Report Northwest Title February 16, 2010 04/21/2010 Company I I GEOENGINEERS May 19, 2010 Page 11 Fife No. 1409-009-01 Lea Hill Park Phase I ESA Auburn, Washington Dates of Coverage or Provider or Date Reviewed Comment Description Dates of Knowledge Interviewee or Contacted (See Section 4.2 for findings) of the Property Daryll Faber, City of Auburn Parks Approximately 2002 to Interview 04/21/2010 Director and Key present Site Manager Sherrie Interview Chatman, King Recent 03/29/2010 The Fire Marshal Office does not have County Fire any records for the subject property. Marshal Office Notes: 1 The scale of the photographs reviewed allowed for an interpretation of general property development/configuration, such as identifying most structures, roadways and clearings. However, the scale of the photographs did not allow for identification of specific property features, such as fuel pumps, wells or chemical storage areas on the subject property, if any. 4.2 Historical Property Ownership and Use Summary Kroll maps indicate that the subject property was owned by Alphonse Caron in approximately 1912, P.C. Koloef in approximately 1930 and M.J. Eberle in approximately 1950. Archived tax assessor documents indicate that Sidney Hendricks owned the property in 1968. King County acquired the property in the 1970s and established the present property use as a recreational park. The property was transferred from King County to the City of Auburn in 2002. Based on the historical research, the subject property was first developed as a small residence and farm by the 1930s. A 1936 aerial photograph shows a small house and a few small outbuildings in the west portion of the subject property (see Figure 2) and a driveway extending to the buildings from 124th Avenue SE. The small house remains visible on an otherwise undeveloped grassy field in subsequent aerial photographs through 1965. Archived tax assessor documents show that this house was constructed in 1930 and used an oil burner as a heat source. In the 1974 aerial photograph, the house is no longer visible and was apparently removed. Ballfields are first visible on the subject property in the 1985 aerial photograph. The subject property tennis courts and playground are first visible in the current property configuration on the 1994 photograph. The subject property remains visibly unchanged from the 1994 through 2007 aerial photographs. According to the fire marshal's office, no records of chemical storage or USTs were on file for the subject property. According to Daryll Faber, City of Auburn Parks Director, no USTs and no leaks, spills, releases or on-site disposal of hazardous substances or petroleum are known to exist at the subject property. Mr. Faber recalled that the subject property may have been a small local farm with a small farmhouse in approximately the 1940s, prior to the property's use as a park, but Mr. Faber did not have any detailed knowledge of the previous residential structure and whether there was a heating oil UST or AST associated with this house or prior historical farm-type activities on the property. Page 12 May 19, 21310 GeoEngineers. Inc. File No. 1,106-009.63. Lea Hill Park Phase I ESA Auburn, Washington 4.3 Adjacent Properties Adjacent properties generally were developed for residential and educational campus purposes between the 1950s and 1990s. North. The northern adjacent property was residential since approximately the 1940s. The adjacent day care was constructed in 1998. East The existing houses across 124th Avenue SE to the northeast were constructed in 1984 and use electric or gas heat. The existing apartment complex to the east across 124th Avenue SE is campus housing for GRCC and was constructed in 2004. The apartment complex uses electric heat, according to King County MAP. South. GRCC is located south of the subject property across SE 320th Street. GRCC was established at the current location in 1965 and has gradually added more buildings to the campus over time. West. Existing houses on the west-adjacent properties were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s and use electric heat. 4. Environmental Liens or Property Use Restrictions During the course of our research, we did not find that environmental liens had been filed against the subject property. 4. Information Provided by User/User Obligations We received responses to a user questionnaire, a copy of which is provided in Appendix A. According to the responses from the user-provided information (for example, title records, environmental liens, specialized knowledge of the subject property, etc.), the user did not provide any specific findings that would suggest a REC or potential REC relative to the subject property. . Findings One potential REC was identified by this portion of the study: ■ A previous small residential building at the property used an oil-burning heating system. The size and location of the heating oil tank (aboveground or underground) associated with the heating system is unknown. We also did not identify available information confirming whether the tank was removed prior to development of the subject property as Lea Hill Park. Therefore, in our opinion there is a possibility that an underground heating oil UST that was formerly associated with the previous residential building may remain beneath the subject property surface. 4.7 Data Gaps One data gap was identified by this portion of the study: ■ The study did not include interviews of previous owners and neighboring occupants and we were therefore unable to confirm the prior use of a heating oil UST or AST and whether a prior residential heating oil UST (if any) was removed. This data gap is significant and results in a r^ REC for the site. GEOENGINEERSr,(-/ May 19, 2010 Page 13 File No. 1400.009-0.1 Lea Hill Park Phase I ESA Aubum, Washington 5.0 CONCLUSIONS GeoEngineers has performed a Phase I ESA in general conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-05 of the Lea Hill Park property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of SE 320th Street and 124th Avenue SE in Auburn, Washington. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.2 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of RECs in connection with the subject property except for the following: w A previous small residential building at the property used an oil-burning heating system. The approximate location of the prior house is shown in Figure 2. The size and location of the heating oil tank (aboveground or underground) associated with the oil-burning heating system could not be confirmed from any of the historical resources available for this study. We were unable to confirm whether a prior residential heating oil UST (if any) was removed prior to redevelopment of the subject property as Lea Hill Park. Therefore, there is a possibility that a buried heating oil UST that was formerly associated with the previous residential building may remain beneath the subject property surface. None of our recent geotechnical test pit explorations were located in close proximity to the former residence; three of the test pits were located approximately 100 to 150 feet northeast, southeast, and southwest of the location of the former house. No staining or odors indicative of petroleum releases were observed on the soil samples from any of our recent geotechnical explorations. In our opinion, there is a low to moderate risk of soil, groundwater or surface water contamination by hazardous substances at the subject property in areas where historical heating oil USTs may still be present. Additional study, such as geophysical evaluation and/or subsurface explorations, would be needed to more fully evaluate the potential for the presence of heating oil USTs and/or associated contamination at the subject property. 6.0 LIMITATIONS This Phase I ESA has been prepared for use by GRCC. GeoEngineers has performed this Phase I ESA of the Lea Hill Park property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of SE 320th Street and 124th Avenue SE in Auburn, Washington, in general accordance with the scope and limitations of our proposal dated February 19, 2010, and ASTM E 1527-05, Standard Practice for Phase I ESAs and EPA's Federal Standard 40 CFR Part 312 "Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI)." Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with the generally accepted environmental science practices for Phase I ESAs in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Please refer to Appendix E titled "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" for additional r.., information pertaining to use of this report. Page 14 May 19, 2010 GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 1406-003-01 Lea Hill Park Phase I ESA Aubum, Washington We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to GRCC. Please call if you require more information or have questions regarding this report. 7.0 REFERENCES ASTM International (ASTM) Standard E 1527-05 for Phase I ESAs. GeoEngineers, 2010. Geotechnical Engineering Services, 124th Avenue SE Improvements, Auburn, Washington, dated February 10, 2010. GeoEngineers, 2010. Geotechnical. Engineering Services, Proposed GRCC Trades Building, Auburn, Washington, in progress. King County iMAP aerial photographs dated 1936, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2005 and 2007. King County Tax Assessor records,provided by Puget Sound Regional Archives dated 1930s-1990s. Parcel Insight, Inc (PI). 2009. PI Radius Map report dated March 25, 2010 (comprehensive environmental database report, including Ecology and EPA databases). PI aerial photographs dated 1944, 1965, 1974, 1985, 1994 and 2001. Polk City Directory listings provided by PI, dated 1958, 1961, 1968, 1976, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1997, 2003 and 2009. United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps for Auburn, Washington quadrangle provided by PI, dated 1994. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Federal Standard 40 CFR Part 312 "Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI)." Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Geologic Map of Washington- Northwest Quadrant. GMENGINEERSr.0 May 1%2010 Page 15 Fife No. 1R0ri-009-01 -Moil C m H GWENGINEERS. i~ j $ North Auburidole Park m / . IS E 298th PI -:6 SE 299th PI W w , ®Q. SE 299th St rn W 1a L SE:301st Pl a > a- M--SE,301st St e a o ply oW Lo 04 N SE 302nd PI II ~a SE 304th St _ w S 04th .St w l rn SE.304th St op w w CO c w SE 305th Pi N ....E may' L t _L SE 307th St L N, > w SE 308th PI t SE 309th St ¢ H t rr .;:hca i SE 310th St SE3111hSte N ~eaaN111aRax w~aww aaSEa31r2tf1wStwreCn , Sic w SE t m 3~2rh y 3131h aY 4! w = N`SE-314th ~...a _ St w rw N 1. ,4> Q n»...........~ m SE•315th:St t ~n I Q h SE 315th PI- Q K > Q , SE 316th St ~0 45 QZ m p Auburndale ParK ¢ Way L y r~ F K n U) 0 am"°'°°"°°w~" ,SE.320thrSt... v ° SE-320th Pi a r11 Park o° EL Gj ~Uj to w SE 323rd St , Q z ¢ rn SE 323rd PI a j L o Q,.. ~r 0 Co z o w eye W a p` ~ u> N 40 '°--2ndShSE--- Q ~ 3rd,Ct SE ~ > 4th St SE... Z, t SEN~sKy VJ 0j Hatch B. Park Rio X Auburn Narrows Park' E E w SE*Lake.Holm,.lid White Lake 18 f W w Q a w m m O p O C) N o;k W E r-..... U♦f S h~., ft n S C) r 2,000 0 2,000 C) 4 e.. ETTI Feet g o n 0 E Notes: Vicinity Map (D 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in a showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. w can not guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master Ii file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of Phase I ESA Lea Hill Park this communication. Auburn, Washington 2 3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for p personal use or resale, without permission. w Data Sources: ESRI Data & Maps, Street Maps 2005 E R Figure 1 L) Transverse Mercator, Zone 10 N North, North American Datum 1983 F,• North arrow oriented to grid north 0 C:1PR0.1ECTViEOMONM14080081011CAD\190800807_MMTINBLEAHILL_F2.tlwp\TAB:F2_LFAHLLLPMKmotllfbCmApr2B.2070-B:798m REDM:JR:SCY y . _ _ .y� . ,. _ < .�, . . -A IV-`� �� 1�/�i 'i_ . �.°..�. .,. �(�KF.�.. � ��t� r.�� , � a � , .. . �� �fq��� L-��_d��rf� ' °� ,- � �. � 0 u . ' ` ^ �4 0 �h7�'A t I � g f�_'q 0g 0 I '.-� • • � t r V � � �� ' �.r � $ �� M � � � r (,(ql y�". �� �a �_ � , :i � t o;, �� � �.`� my ,C �.c, � t °M �� � �,,,> J � ' N x , J , , .I �. 'nm m ��, . . 4�F . 7+9 �x i0 - ?� 4` O�r^ �t ` , °� � . o � m °�. �.� �"--�. , � . -�M1 4 � . ' �4'i . ` `I �^ � ` ' ' �`�` ,. � o � om a�� �� 7 . a� �Y'`� � " � �� � f �. .e � 6. •:� . c . � s � � m � ° 'ii . . � ` .,�v ,�„ �� e � ., � U�, � � , � . r �' a� o ca . , ��y �'m'�, � ��, ' � ' . �° Jry .. 3 � � � .f; . {q "� y�J ' �— zc �o� j� ° .L � . „ �� � .� � R� � `; �'4 �[ � 1. � 4 . $a� 4�ht' }�" tJ � � � � � D a '] ' � . ,e Q� � � '� � . . .� 7 . �(� a�c � � `�' � s� , ( 1-..:� � � i . t_, a�' � . � . . ' 1� � t.� � � ' � � ���. � . � �� d o�0� � .� ` t•' . �.� ,� Q. '� , . _ a t ,� ,�._' �, o , � � �a ;° n �a -� � ¢4` �.. o � : �o �� ��o , 5,� ..� m � _ .r.� �. . � � L u � w ?� `i �� o '� L{, +�j� { "•;� � 9 • � !'• ~ L'�' � ' � _ J .�;._ , md m � � � ':f�`� .}' � � �! , � V, � Q g . ...v..»w G�r''�� � l.� �� :f' ��1 � `�i F..�� � ` 0'V fTi t�c* �l ' o �^, ,� '`�- .�i. �- �� � �aSYa ,�.. Y _Fi G9 r � 'k` ��5 g� y �� _.IS''_'r�^"�' , � �'= 1 (t�a-- � � , �r�`�. ��a°, c ,�, ,�o w m o . � . � �,x„� � � �' I . as `��q �r `� ��, � °�-�� . =x :. � �- �' - �� 7 �` � -:t =3 g� ., . , , � . ; , �,� �'" `� f�' � cm '4 r ,. d� ' l ,� ,,-�c" ' (f � $ ` - � � �p, � � 1 � 3°� CY ;F. "N� ^� �'E-k`-p F ,�;� . mO..`r1 F� x s�: L..� .� , ���7 `�•�j��N• M�'cs�1� .i � . � '- - Q . _. �{ _ � e,4 . � 'a-9"'.,pa 1.�_ � � r �"'2 v ;�{ 3 i v�"r'A' :3'f. "� J - ' .. .. . �� -� �oy 1 m - r � ' ' �' C�,��D�VE'"�E'vS� �Q • `,�'-+ ��+ - ., y- r,� , , �`'� i 3C- � a 1 ' . ._ . �tpQ Y H ; ��• ` � y . : � .. �� r� � n � .�1� .tll:rk� . , . � -1c+° �6 , p� � Y"�12: �� i.iY r� �,' 1 r. � � l i � . � f . ���. � � [� . r r� ' ;'� :��. �' .v� :)3 i _ '-- y �'�7.t�'.� ' ,4 .° � � U � � ,I " •�� � � «)' •` �' .�y . _�^`, m im .'p�' !� . fr. ..w_.�.��- � ± ' n' � ^f . � � � . �".tX.. � � y � Z 7 r (. �. n ` . , � +t�;j �. s *��.. r . � ♦ . , _ _ �� .' j : , n � ° 4.�m �'� 1 �:._. __ • _ . . , � � -.. ^.'y. , , - � � �" �.`.!; .. �---^ E � .' ._" " , �� ��> _ . � - , � -.-�f 3 �2�� � . � f�� — � �.�. . Q j , �: � . " �... .._ -• F� N � . m f C � � �� �, J' �h� > — �_.. . � . � � r ' � 4 � �t� ; � . ..l`�'� � . '• , B � n £ .� � - -` _ � . ._ � a O ' � �' ` �w � �� ,�, w r ,{�_ ' � -� � � �` � `�; �; ' '� ��� ;� � � . � �i m ` � � � - � ��I � . � f ; ' �, ,. _ ...i' fA T � � _ . _. . t��, -_ _ . m ' � � .� ' I � !� �� �� � � . m , � m � �Y .� r _� k„� I* ��SY � � . f„ � q�' O t ...�a a. c' � o�� �d T(��o`� 'i� Y'i �x'c 3�a'F J' � f) 4 . !� 0 � ,/ "'_'_ � �i (�'� � � � , y� .. ry 3ro.+� r 35 .'�.7y � �, �e��° C �r� +i-�� 0 S:, : (� �, ,� , m �1 1 ' � t' ':s �".e,e� '3'¢�,Y`A.�S`,'l�C,fi�'�� � � ' .,tf Z. 'S�-✓'�,;:.'°��. _ "� a.,b .� �./'` � �. Sa�lf r ' 7 ��'`�� �.f'.'�'wn"'�� L��L��3'`" ."`t .�$ ' .. , ' � t� m � F.r' 8 ..� 4Kr � � �i f .�.:s'— ^ . ,I � ��"'5+� ) {`'�'��� � u ^? ,.(, `�t' �Y�"1.� �wK�.�� i` � �•��tk Lr.'O���O,�`� 4� ° ::� j '�-- _,. ' � + ��� x �� .y� t � y�y �. �� �, N �� ' �J �"r 'i.�f Ju..'�'�.f ' . �� � �� • � � m O ._ q ��� gt, � t',7� � . .� Ar ir �° . (y ..t � . ,i�.i, .. .1 �.. .— j��. . � . ,, 1�1`�` +; `��, . �. .��.r�r'�d�a „"�'ry. �� ��� �,•' „rr� �,� o _•c'�;�'�k�fa' . � ' . J' - . (A ,. -�, $ �. . , �,f i �1�°��P� �24TF1—.4�VE.�D�5� _" `-- � _ _ . — - . _ - . � _ _ --• �. ' f„�t.�f .�--�r-^�� i.,-��._l.l'd-_ .`'Y���� t�.,�„�.-',' 1 T .#^`•l - �. � � o c:F r N r1�1 , .� ��r , � �"- . V33�.. �l,;oy- ' _ c 1 J �a Tt m � �""�'[� , r ir � F - � a� t � 3 � ' .` 4 o z ` � 8 a � � � ri•",,� -.'.. ^. tJ " ` e * : , �1' ,.n v r� -- . �� -ty . � � 1 (� r•ii7�, m i "'^�_"„�. . �� . F.7 � a, ' .e ry� e �� ✓ �_ I � $ . � r �� ._' G � . . .+ ��5 ., `:� ) v ¢ � . -:1�� '� • �� � � i. J �,' o a scfLS°''�t:�r�`��i;.�` u�mi ^ �-,` ' .... ��r. d_ - - ' - � � ��r-��.. �3 , i��� � �., � . � f, ',-r;�.�-,..�--"'"l�,"i � 1� �t_-. , �I' _ " ." � Ir�„ !LL_J'a '�e} y �4 :� .J' i` i ."� I. .,. '� -� __- �r �^-'`r � y ---;_�,� ' +n �+ ; �� r- � ` ! ° ---,� D �. , `g! L., . '; >., � & �-,.,> . �' � � � � �. � yc� ` 1 �7 17'1 � tl' P� l, �� � _- i , '�- ; j , �j � j o , � f".L� �.� r �y � - � . � '. •' , y f, � - P - "`y j�.:� ,'n 'Y j 1 � � ��,.ti � �r � � � 4�. x �- .E� �, s� -� � r�cs �: Z � 'r F��' �; � ��-I�'s.`'T.`"s� '° (" ,`� y _ � � � '�'' � � m � U. za �_ � � fi=�� �` '�.��.? � � � ,,.�,� " ,,,�c� >. .., � g3 , . .(� _ � � ,.. r�n = � , � � }z ""'�. T" �'` � � 'L �' � .� `�.�' . � �,ti€:� =���;:, . . I —��—, --� � m tn f��- 4r �� 7 ,a. '�=. ` ;r� '�� � .`�''> _� ,, a,(� I q }i rn V� � �,1Jl.t "� �t" ��.s-'',�� i.` ' cf��2��r }!,' .S.y, �!, " �J�9 ,%?�, �;�,+���� .�'. ��-r-�. . . -1` � � D -j ��__�.,,,�..P�i�.�l�'"...f� • �,a. 1..+�S �'RS F. ,.� ' `�?s:�� �+ �� ,� '.,�... N m r � � o�...µ 4,�':1- �� � �. �I'r t"i7 'Y : � i<`��,�,, L 4' `� Sr t -r'� , � ami m � ��_� � f:: �, r • , ' _ �' �'j �.0 �. . �,;,1. ; . � � �. 7 ''y``'T.. ° 5F � . � p� . (y 'idh .1� y•�f � ' r� L. } • �T �' ._"K�. � � I • � � � . . � r. � , _i ���..-�.�. .' ' 7 4.�.-.. . ... ._ .._ ...."t..—._�........__...L _ . �. � L' .. ,. . � � � � C �z m N 1° .~a5 01 i LOOKING NORTHEAST ACROSS SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM PARKING LOT 9 'T F 14 r TY- Ik 1 0 N M O Q d a vi N 7 U- 0 O a LOOKING NORTH ACROSS EAST PORTION OF PROPERTY AT PLAYGROUND A J O O O O co SITE PHOTOGRAPHS - APRIL 2010 o GMENGINEER w FIGURE 3 Earth Science + Technology Croy P ~ ~ ~ _ 'va • ,n a. S l M 3 q~. REPRESENTATIVE VIEW OF SUBJECT PROPERTY STORAGE SHED IR i 3 t 4 } f x. 1 a sr ie ` o b j V { H ~ A 2 w y L a REPRESENTATIVE VIEW, INTERIOR OF STORAGE SHED J O O o f 1.0 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS -APRIL 2010 o GMENGINEERS w Earth Science + Technology FIGURE 4 p m Z 0 Cl) m N GMENGINEERS~ .yam r: , ti ~ a APPENDIX A M Completed User Questionnaire ~e r !d e Y 1 t c > r F I i > > i ~ ../>"N Jir tt F .r > ~ Y F ~ r y PHASE I ESA USER QUESTIONNAIRE LEA HILL PARK PROPERTY GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE AUBURN, WASHINGTON GEI FILE NO. 1406-009-01 In order to qualify for one of the federal landowner liability protections, and to enable us to fully address the objectives of the Phase I ESA, please complete the questionnaire below and provide the additional information requested. 1. Are you aware of any environmental cleanup liens against the subject property that are filed or recorded under federal, tribal and state or local law? a. ❑ YES ❑ NO X❑ DON'T KNOW Explain: 2. Are you aware of any Activity and Use Limitations (AULs), such as engineering controls, land use restrictions or institutional controls, that are in place at the subject property and/or have been filed or recorded in a registry under federal, tribal, state or local law? a. ❑ YES ❑ NO X❑ DON'T KNOW Explain: 3. As the user of this Phase I ESA, do you have any specialized knowledge or experience related to the subject property or nearby properties? For example are you involved in the same line of business as the current or former occupants of the property or an adjoining property so that you would have specialized knowledge of the chemicals and processes used by this type of business? a. ❑ YES X❑ NO ❑ DON'T KNOW Explain: 4. Does the purchase price being paid for the subject property reasonable reflect the fair market .rrs value of the property? a. X❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ DON'T KNOW Explain: b. If you conclude that there is a difference and you answered NO above, have you considered whether the lower purchase price is because contamination is known or believed to be present at the property? c. ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ DON'T KNOW Explain: 5. Are you aware of commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the subject property that would help us identify conditions indicative or releases or threatened releases? For example, a. Do you know the past uses of the property? b. X❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ DON'T KNOW Explain: Community Park c. Do you know of specific chemicals that are present or once were present on the property? d. ❑ YES ❑ NO X❑ DON'T KNOW Explain: e. Do you know of spills or other chemical releases that have taken place at the property? f. ❑ YES ❑ NO X❑ DON'T KNOW Explain: g. Do you know of any environmental cleanups that have taken place at the property? h. ❑ YES ❑ NO X❑ DON'T KNOW Explain: 6. Based on your knowledge and experience related to the subject property, are there any obvious -low& indicators that point to the presence or likely presence of contamination at the property? CEOENGINEERS ~ He MU. 1306-0+~9-0 a. ❑ YES X❑ NO ❑ DON'T KNOW Explain: User Questionnaire Completed By (Name and Organization): Sam Ball, GRCC Date: May 24, 2010 List of Requested Information, If Available Names and phone numbers of key individuals with knowledge of property use history. A map showing the boundaries of the subject property. Tax ID numbers for parcels included within the subject property. Copies of any past environmental site assessment and/or audit reports or risk assessment studies. Environmental permits. Registrations for underground and aboveground storage tanks (if any). Material data safety sheets for hazardous substances used or stored on-site (if any). Community right-to-know plans pertaining to the subject property. Safety plans pertaining to on-site facilities. Reports regarding geotechnical and/or hydrogeologic conditions at or near the subject property. Notices or other correspondence from any governmental agency relating to past or current violations of environmental laws with respect to the subject property or relating to environmental r , liens encumbering the property. Recorded Activity Use Limitations (AULs) 0 0 } w ~ F , r ij 4 APPENDIX B s Title/Reoort and Legal Description w m { s t F' r S i 4 j > • f ~.m SE 4 SW 1/ 9-21-5E iZ- > _ E a n C • i, gt ° 'L, I - ~ fa C e Y y / i - IM-4 PACIFIC N(- T VVF.ST TITLE Order No. 110 9771 Company of Washington, Inc. IMPORTANT: This is not a Plat of Survey. It is furnished as a convenience to locate the land indicated,hereon with reference to streets and other land. No liability is assumed by reason of reliance hereon. 9 GLL4RANTEE Issued by Pacific /Northwest Title Company 215 Columbia Street, Seattle, WA 98104 Title Offil'cer.• Curtis Goodman Phone: (206)622-1040 FAX.• (206)343-1358 Form No. 14 Guarantee No.: 1109771 Subdivision Guarantee (4-10-75) Page No.: 1 Pacific Northwest Title Company 215 Columbia Street Seattle, WA 98104 04 Phn -(206)622-1040 Fax -(206)343-1358 PACIFIC NOR-nP IESr TITLE MPAN-N, - - - SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE LIABILITY $ 1,250.00 ORDER NO.: 1109771 FEE $ 250.00 TAX $ 23.75 YOUR REF.: 02-17-2010 First American Title Insurance Company a Corporation, herein called the Company Subject to the Liability Exclusions and Limitations set forth below and in Schedule A. GUARANTEES Reid Middleton Inc. herein called the Assured, against loss not exceeding the liability amount stated above which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurances set forth in Schedule A. LIABILITY EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS 1. No guarantee is given nor liability assumed with respect to the validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown therein. 2. The Company's liability hereunder shall be limited to the amount of actual loss sustained by the Assured because of reliance upon the assurance herein set forth, but in no event shall the Company's liability exceed the liability amount set forth above. 3. This Guarantee is restricted to the use of the Assured for the purpose of providing title evidence as may be required when subdividing land pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 58.17, R.C.W., and the local regulations and ordinances adopted pursuant to said statute. It is not to be used as a basis for closing any transaction affecting title to said property. Dated: February 17, 2010 at 8:00 A.M. Title Officer: Curtis Goodman (curtisgoodman@pnwt.com) Assistant Title Officer Rob Chelton(robchelton@pnwt.com) Unit No. 12 FAX No. (206)343-1330 Telephone Number (206)343-1327 Form No. 14 Guarantee No.: 1109771 Subdivision Guarantee (4-10-75) Page No.: 2 SCHEDULE A The assurances referred to on the face page are: A. Title is vested in: City of Auburn, a municipal corporation B. That according to the Company's title plant records relative to the following described real property (including those records maintained and indexed by name), there are no other documents affecting title to said real property or any porition thereof, other than those shown below under Record Matters. The following matters are excluded from the coverage of this Guarantee: 1. Unpatented Mining Claims, reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof. 2. Water rights, claims or title to water. 3. Tax Deeds to the State of Washington. 4. Documents pertaining to mineral estates. DESCRIPTION: Legal Description: THE SOUTH '/2 OF THE SE '/a OF THE SW '/a OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WM, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 30 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD, (SE 320TH ST) BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 5796415, AND EXCEPT THE EAST 30 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD (124TH AVENUE SE) BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 5799261. EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING WESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH MARGIN OF S E 320TH ST AND THE EAST MARGIN OF THE PLAT OF LEA HILL VILLAGE DIVISION NO 1, IN VOLUME 87 OF PLATS ON PAGE 39-41, THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST MARGIN OF 122ND AVENUE SE TO THE NE CORNER OF SAID ADDITION, THENCE NORTH 3-01-47 EAST 75 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 88-45-00- EAST 92 FEET, THENCE NORTH 1-10-00 WEST 178 84 FEET, THENCE NORTH 86-44-10 WEST TO THE SE CORNER OF LOT 75 OF LEA HILL VILLAGE DIVISION 3-A, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED VOLUME 93 OF PLATS, PAGE 74, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID LEA HILL VILLAGE DIVISION 3-A TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION, EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY BY DEED, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7510080361. / ' APN : 092105-9020-08 Form No. 14 Guarantee No.: 1109771 Subdivision Guarantee (4-10-75) Page No.: 3 SCHEDULE B RECORD MATTERS: 1. Taxes for the year 2010. The first half becomes delinquent after April 30th. The second half becomes delinquent after October 31 st. Tax Account No.: 092105-9020-08 Levy Code: 0135 2010 Total Tax Principal: $ 24.02 1st Half Amount Billed: $ 24.02 Amount Paid: $ 0.00 Amount Due: $ 24.02 2nd Half Amount Billed: $ 0.00 Amount Paid: $ 0.00 Amount Due: $ 0.00 2010 Remaining Balance: $ 24.02 2. Liability for additional general taxes (rollback taxes) and interest which may be imposed pursuant to RCW 84.36.810 upon cessation of the use for which the exemption was granted. According to RCW 84.36.812, the County shall not accept an instrument of conveyance (for recording) unless the additional tax has been paid. 3. Matters disclosed on a survey recorded under Recording Number 9401259005. 4. Right to make necessary slopes for cuts or fills upon property herein described as granted in deed: Recorded: October 08, 1964 Recording No.: 5796415 Grantee: King County 5. Right to make necessary slopes for cuts or fills upon property herein described as granted in deed: Recorded: October 15, 1964 Recording No.: 5799261 Grantee: King County 6. Easement and the terms and conditions therein, including, but not limited to, the following: Grantee: City of Auburn, a municipal corporation Purpose: Ingress and egress and for the purpose of laying, maintaining and installing an outfall sewer line with necessary appurtenances Area Affected: Portion of said premises Recorded: December 19, 1968 Recording No.: 6449536 Said easement was also established under Recording No. 6701257. Form No. 14 Guarantee No.: 1109771 Subdivision Guarantee (4-10-75) Page No.: 4 7. Right to make necessary slopes for cuts or fills upon property herein described as granted in deed: Recorded: October 08, 1975 Recording No.: 7510080361 Grantee: King County 8. Intergovernmental Land Transfer Agreement and the terms and conditions thereof: By and Between: King County and City of Auburn Dated: December 30, 2002 Recorded: December 31, 2002 Recording No.: 20021231003876 Affects: Includes other property 9. Covenants, conditions and restrictions contained in instrument: Recorded: December 31, 2002 Recording No.: 20021231003877 Form No. 14 Guarantee No.: 1109771 Subdivision Guarantee (4-10-75) Page No.: 5 INFORMATIONAL NOTES 1. Any sketch attached hereto is done so as a courtesy only and is not part of any title commitment or policy. It is furnished solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises and First American Title Insurance Company expressly disclaims any liability which may result from reliance made upon it. SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE OF THIS GUARANTEE 1. Except to the extent that specific assurance' are provided iri Schedule A of this Guarantee, the Company assumes no liability for loss or damage by reason of the following: (a) Defects; liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters against the title, whether or not shown by the public records. (b) (1) Taxes or assessments of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property; or, (2) Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not the matters excluded "under (1) or, (2) are shown. by the records of the taxing authority or by the public cords. (c) (1) Unpatented mining claims; (2) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the'issuance thereof; (3) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excluded under (1), (2) or (3) are shown by the public records. 2. Notwithstanding any specific assurances which are provided in Schedule A of this Guarantee, the Company assumes no liability for loss or damage by reason of the following: (a) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters affecting the title to any property beyond the lines of the land expressly described in the description set forth in Schedule (A), (C) or in Part 2 of this Guarantee, or title to streets, roads, avenues, lanes, ways or waterways to which such land abuts, or the right to maintain therein vaults, tunnels, ramps, or any structure or improvements; or any rights or easements therein, unless such property, rights or easements are expressly and specifically set forth in said description. . (b) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, whether or not shown-by the public records; (1) which are created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by one or more of the Assureds; (2) which result in no loss to the Assured; or (3) which do not result in the invalidity or potential invalidity of any judicial or non-judicial proceeding which is within the scope and purpose of the assurances provided. (c) The identity of any party shown or referred to in Schedule A. (d) The validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown or referred to in this Guarantee. GUARANTEE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1. Definition of Terms. The following terms when used in the Guarantee mean: any fees, costs or expenses incurred by an Assured in the defense of those causes of (a) the "Assured": the party or parties named as the Assured in this Guarantee, or action which allege matters not covered by this Guarantee. on 'a supplemental writing executed by the Company. (c) Whenever the Company shall have brought an action or interposed a defense (b) "land": the land described or referred -to"in Schedule (A) (C) or in Part 2, and as permitted by the provisions of this Guarantee, the Company may pursue any improvements affixed thereto which by law constitute real property. The term "land" litigation to final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction and expressly does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described or referred to in reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to appeal from an adverse judgment or order. Schedule (A)-(C) or in Part 2, nor any right, title, interest, estate or easement in (d) In all cases where this Guarantee permits the Company to prosecute or abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways or waterways. provide for the defense of any action or proceeding, an Assured shall secure to the (c) "mortgage": mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. Company the right to so. prosecute or provide for the defense of any action or (d) "public records" records established under state statutes at Date of proceeding, and all appeals therein, and permit the Company to use, at its option, the Guarantee for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real name of such Assured for this purpose. Whenever requested by the Company, an property to purchasers for value and without knowledge. Assured, at the Company's expense, shall give the Company all reasonable aid in any (e) "date": the effective date. action or proceeding, securing evidence, obtaining witnesses,, prosecuting or defending the action or lawful act which in the opinion of the Company may be 2. Notice of Claim to be Given by Assured Claimant. necessary or desirable to establish the title to the estate or interest as stated herein, An Assured shall notify the Company promptly in writing in case knowledge shall or to establish the lien rights of the Assured. If the Company is prejudiced by the come to an Assured hereunder of any claim of title or interest which is adverse to the failure of the Assured to furnish the required cooperation, the Company's obligations title to the estate or interest, as stated herein, and which might cause loss or damage to the Assured under the Guarantee shall terminate. r which the Company may be liable by virtue of this Guarantee. If prompt notice ;all not be given to the Company, then all liability of the Company shall terminate S. Proof of Loss or Damage. -with regard to the matter or matters for which prompt notice" is required; provided, In addition to and after the notices required under Section 2 of these Conditions and however, that failure to notify the Company shall in no case prejudice the rights of Stipulations have been provided to the Company, a proof of loss or. damage signed any Assured under this Guarantee unless the Company shall be prejudiced by the and sworn to by the Assured shall be furnished to the Company within ninety (90) failure and then only to the extent of the prejudice. days after the Assured shall ascertain the facts giving rise to the loss or damage. The proof of loss or damage shall describe the matters covered by this Guarantee which 3. No Duty to Defend or Prosecute. constitute the basis of loss or damage and shall state, to the extent possible, .the The Company shall have no duty to defend or prosecute any action or proceeding to basis of calculating the amount of the loss or damage. If the Company is prejudiced which the Assured is a party, notwithstanding the nature of any allegation in such by the failure of the Assured to provide the required.proof of loss or damage, the action or proceeding. Company's obligation to such Assured under the Guarantee shall terminate. In addition, the Assured may reasonably be required to submit to examination under. 4. Company's Option to Defend or Prosecute Actions; Duty of Assured oath by any authorized representative of the Company and shall produce for Claimant to Cooperate. examination, inspection and copying, at such reasonable times and places as may be Even though the Company has no duty to defend or. prosecute as set forth in designated by any authorized representative of the Company, all records, books, Paragraph 3 above: ledgers, checks, correspondence and memoranda, whether bearing a date-before or (a) The Company shall have the right, at its sole option and cost, to institute and after Date of Guarantee, which reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. Further,' if prosecute any action or proceeding, interpose a defense, as limited in (b); or to do requested by any authorized representative of the Company, the Assured shall grant any other act which in its opinion may be necessary or desirable to establish the title its permission, in writing, for any authorized representative of the Company to to the estate or interest as stated herein, or to establish the lien rights of the examine, inspect and copy all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and Assured, or to prevent or reduce loss or damage to the Assured. " The Company may memoranda in the custody or control of a third party, which reasonably pertain to the take any appropriate action under the terms of.this Guarantee, whether or not it shall Loss or Damage. All information designated as confidential by the Assured provided be liable hereunder, and shall not thereby concede liability or waive any provision of to the Company, pursuant to this Section shall not be disclosed to others unless, in this Guarantee. If the Company shall exercise its rights under this paragraph, it shall the reasonable judgment of the Company, it is necessary in the administration of the do so diligently. claim. Failure of the Assured to submit for examination under oath, produce other (b) If the Company elects to exercise its options as stated in Paragraph 4(a) the reasonably requested information or grant permission to secure reasonably necessary Company shall have the right to select counsel of its choice (subject to the right of information from third parties as required in the above paragraph, unless prohibited such Assured to object for reasonable cause) to represent the Assured and shall not by law or governmental regulation, shall terminate any liability of the Company under be liable for and will not pay the fees of any other counsel, nor will the Company pay this Guarantee to the Assured for that claim. Form No. 1282 (Rev. 12/15/95) 6. Options to Pay or Otherwise Settle Claims: Termination of Liability. (c) The Company shall not be liable for loss or damage to any Assured for liability In case of a claim under this Guarantee, the Company shall have the following voluntarily assumed by the Assured in settling any claim or suit without the additional options: prior written consent of the Company. (a) To Pay or Tender Payment of the Amount of Liability or to Purchase the Indebtedness. 9. Reduction of Liability or Termination of Liability. The Company shall have the option to pay or settle or compromise for or in the name All payments under this Guarantee, except payments made for costs, attorneys' fees of the Assured any claim which could result in loss to the Assured within the coverage and expenses pursuant to Paragraph 4 shall reduce the amount of liability pro tanto. of this Guarantee, or to pay the full amount of this Guarantee or, if this Guarantee is issued for the benefit of a holder of a mortgage or a lienholder, the Company shall 10. Payment of Loss. have the option to purchase the indebtedness secured by said mortgage or said lien (a) No payment shall be made without producing this Guarantee for endorsem, for the amount owing thereon, together with any costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and of the payment unless the Guarantee has been lost or destroyed, in which case proof expenses incurred by the Assured claimant which were authorized by the Company up of loss or destruction shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the Company. to the time of purchase. (b) When liability and the extent of loss or damage has been definitely fixed in Such purchase, payment or tender of payment of the full amount of the Guarantee accordance with these Conditions and Stipulations, the loss or damage shall be shall terminate all liability of the Company hereunder. In the event after notice of payable within thirty (30) days thereafter. claim has been given to the Company by the Assured the Company offers to purchase said indebtedness, the owner of such indebtedness shall transfer and assign said 11. Subrogation Upon Payment or Settlement. indebtedness, together with any collateral security, to the Company upon payment of Whenever the Company shall have settled and paid a claim under this Guarantee, all the purchase price. right of subrogation shall vest in the Company unaffected by any act of the Assured Upon the exercise by the Company of the option provided for in Paragraph (a) the claimant. Company's obligation to the Assured under this Guarantee for the claimed loss or The Company shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all rights and remedies which damage, other than to make the payment required in that paragraph, shall terminate, the Assured would have had against any person or property in respect to the claim had including any obligation to continue the defense or prosecution of any litigation for this Guarantee not been issued. If requested by the Company, the Assured shall which the Company has exercised its options under Paragraph 4, and the Guarantee transfer to the Company all rights and remedies against any person or property shall be surrendered to the Company for cancellation. necessary in order to perfect this right of subrogation. The Assured shall permit the (b) To Pay or Otherwise Settle With Parties Other Than the Assured or With the Company to sue, compromise or settle in the name of the Assured and to use the Assured Claimant. name of the Assured in any transaction or litigation involving these rights or remedies. To pay or otherwise settle with other parties for or in the name of an Assured claimant If a payment on account of a claim does not fully cover the loss of the Assured the any claim Assured against under this Guarantee, together with any costs, attorneys' Company shall be subrogated to all rights and remedies of the Assured after the fees and expenses incurred by the Assured claimant which were authorized by the Assured shall have recovered its principal, interest, and costs of collection. Company up to the time of payment and which the Company is obligated to pay. Upon the exercise by the Company of the option provided for in Paragraph (b) the 12. Arbitration. Company's obligation to the Assured under this Guarantee for the claimed loss or Unless prohibited by applicable law, either the Company or the Assured may demand damage, other than to make the payment required in that paragraph, shall terminate, arbitration pursuant to the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration including any obligation to continue the defense or prosecution of any litigation for Association. Arbitrable matters may include, but are not limited to, any controversy or which the Company has exercised its options under Paragraph 4. claim between the Company and the Assured arising out of or relating to this Guarantee, any service of the Company in connection with its issuance or the breach 7. Determination and Extent of Liability. of a Guarantee provision or other obligation. All arbitrable matters when the Amount This Guarantee is a contract of Indemnity against actual monetary loss or damage of Liability is $1,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company sustained or incurred by the Assured claimant who has suffered loss or damage by or the Assured. All arbitrable matters when the amount of liability is in excess of reason of reliance upon the assurances set forth in this Guarantee and only to the $1,000,000 shall be arbitrated only when agreed to by both the Company and the extent herein described, and subject to the Exclusions From Coverage of This Assured. The Rules in effect at Date of Guarantee shall be binding upon the parties. Guarantee. The award may include attorneys' fees only if the laws of the state in which the land is The Liability of the Company under this Guarantee to the Assured shall not exceed the located permits a court to award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party. Judgment upl1 least of: the award rendered by the Arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court ha, (a) the amount of liability stated in Schedule A or in Part 2; jurisdiction thereof. (b) the amount of the unpaid principal indebtedness secured by the mortgage of an The law of the situs of the land shall apply to an arbitration under the Title Insurance Assured mortgagee, as limited or provided under Section 6 of these Conditions and Arbitration Rules. Stipulations or as reduced under Section 9 of these Conditions and Stipulations, at the A copy of the Rules may be obtained from the Company upon request. time the loss or damage Assured against by this Guarantee occurs, together with interest thereon; or 13. Liability Limited to This Guarantee; Guarantee Entire Contract. (c) the difference between the value of the estate or interest covered hereby as (a) This Guarantee together with all endorsements, if any, attached hereto by the stated herein and the value of the estate or interest subject to any defect, lien or Company is the entire Guarantee and contract between the Assured and the encumbrance Assured against by this Guarantee. Company. In interpreting any provision of this Guarantee, this Guarantee shall be construed as a whole. 8. Limitation of Liability. (b) Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, or any action (a) If the Company establishes the title, or removes the alleged defect, lien or asserting such claim, shall be restricted to this Guarantee. encumbrance, or cures any other matter Assured against by this Guarantee in a (c) No amendment of or endorsement to this Guarantee can be made except by a reasonably diligent manner by any method, including litigation and the completion of writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto signed by either the President, a Vice any appeals therefrom, it shall have fully performed its obligations with respect to that President, the Secretary, an Assistant Secretary, or validating officer or authorized matter and shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused thereby. signatory of the Company. (b) In the event of any litigation by the Company or with the Company's consent, the Company shall have no liability for loss or damage until there has been a final 14. Notices, Where Sent. determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and disposition of all appeals All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to therefrom, adverse to the title, as stated herein. be furnished the Company shall include the number of this Guarantee and shall be addressed to the Company at 2 First American Way. Bldg. 2, Santa Ana, CA. 92707. Form No. 1282 (Rev. 12/15/95) 20021231003877.001 w Fled For Record At Request Of 20021231003877 44~ (~z KCG D 0 00 AFTER R CORDING RETURN TO. PAGE 001 OF 003 12/31/2002 15'21 King County KING COUNTY, WA Asset Management Section ADM-ES-0500 E1931710 500 King County Admin Bldg 12/31/2002 15-18 500 Fourth Avenue KING COUNTY, to Seattle, WA 98104 SALE SO 00 PAGE 00i OF 002 BARGAIN AND SALE DEED Grantor - - King County, Washington Grantee - - City of Auburn Legal - - - - Lot 4, Sound Trustee Co. 3rd Addn. & SW 114, SEC. 9-21-5 Tax Acct. - 7867000020 & 0921059020 r•-. The Grantor, KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, for and in consideration of mutual benefits, pursuant to King County Ordinance No 14553, does hereby bargain, sell, and convey unto the CITY OF AUBURN, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, the following described lands, situate in King County, Washington, and referred to herein as the "Property" AUBURNDALE 11 PARK Tax Account No 786700-0020 Lot 4, Sound Trustee Company's Third Addition, as recorded in Volume 13 of Plats, page 100, records of King County, Washington SUBJECT TO 1) Easement in favor of Bonneville Power Administration's transmission line, as granted in instruments recorded under Recording Nos 3252026 and 50050427, respectively, 2) Easement for water pipeline in favor of the City of Tacoma as recorded under Auditor's File No 7410160331, 3) Connection Charges for Sewer Hook-up as recorded November 30, 1989, under Recording No 8911300822, and 4) Connection Charges for Water System Hook-up as recorded August 19, 2002, under Recording No 20020819001046 LEA HILL PARK Tax Account No 092105-9020 The South 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SW 114 of Section 9, Township 21 North, Range 5 East, W M , EXCEPT the South 30 feet thereof conveyed to King County for road, (SE 320" St ) by Deed recorded under Auditor's File No 5796415, AND EXCEPT the East 30 feet thereof conveyed to King County for road (124' Avenue SE) by Deed recorded under Auditor's File No 5799621, 20021231003877.002 i _10b'N EXCEPT that portion lying Westerly of the following described line Beginning at the intersection of the North margin ofS E 32U' St and the East margin of the plat of Lea Hill Village Division No 1, in Volume 87 of Plats on pages 39 41, thence North along the East margin of 122id Avenue SE to the NE corner of said Addition, thence North 3-01-47 East 75 feet, thence South 88-45-00 East 92 feet, thence North 1-10-00 West 178 84 feet, thence North 86-44-10 West to the SE comer of Lot 75 of Lea Hill Village Division 3-A in Volume 93 of Plats on page 74, thence North along the Easterly margin of said Lea Hill Village Division 3-A to the North line of said subdivision, EXCEPT that portion conveyed to King County by deed dated September 23, recorded October 8, 1975, under Recording No 7510080361, in King County, Washington SUBJECT TO 1) Easement for Sewer Outfall Line to City of Auburn, as recorded under Recording No 6449536, 2) Easement for Slopes to King County, Washington as recorded October 8, 1964, under Recording No 5796415, 3) Easement for Slopes to King County, Washington as recorded October 15, 1964, under Recording No 5799261, 4) Survey recorded under Recording No 9401259005 showing discrepancy between Northerly property boundary of said premises and the location of a chain link fence, culvert extends into said premises across Northerly property boundary SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING COVENANTS, WHICH ARE INTENDED TO BE RUNNING COVENANTS BURDENING AND BENEFITING THE PARTIES SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS The City covenants that the Property shall continue to be used in perpetuity for park or recreation purposes unless other equivalent lands or facilities within the county or the city are received in exchange therefore and the replacement lands or facilities are used in perpetuity for park or recreation purposes The City covenants that it shall abide by and enforce all terms, conditions and restrictions in King County Resolution 34571, including that the City covenants that the Property will continue to be used for the purposes contemplated by Resolution 34571, that the Property shall not be transferred or conveyed except by agreement providing that such lands shall continue to be used for the purposes contemplated by Resolution 34571, and that the Property shall not be converted to a different use unless other equivalent lands and facilities within the County or City shall be received in exchange therefore. The City covenants that it shall not use the Property in a manner that would cause the interest on County bonds related to the Property to no longer be exempt from federal income taxation. The City further covenants that it will not limit or restrict access to and use of the Property by non-city residents in any way that does not also apply to city residents The City covenants that if differential fees for non-city residents are imposed, they will be reasonably related to the cost borne by city taxpayers to maintain, improve or operate the Property for parks and recreation purposes 20021231003877.003 r The City covenants that it shall place the preceding covenants in any deed transferring the Property or a portion of the Property for public park, recreation or open space uses Dated this 31 S• - day of D ecRM bzr , 20 Oa KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON BY TITLE STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that gro~d MC.N,1I t signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was autho ze by the King County Executive tQ execute the instrument, and acknowledged A as the -hn i W e4 M T QC . of King County, Washington to be the free an voluntary act of said 06unty for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument Dated Dec2 m6er 31) 2002 1. T p 0Mhj, x• NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the St t~ e ~o1nAY s of Washington, residing at 5Zea _ _ My appointment expires 1 -15 -D ~j9 ••OS f. ' . e - - ~t... o . ~~r. , ,,F~ iw~ ~~~i ~~~.wwwuuuuu~~~~ r y. a „ w f , 1 ' ~ r s r s c d ~y _ APPENDIX C Parcel Insight, Inc. (PI) Report A 3zt f~i~~' w^ ~ t p s, N;w l M t nt 1 r i r Y ~ V4 j' w. M'.rev w Sze m .y ry.!' , s ~ . a- j ~ z ( 1 r ( ~ 'fyy 4 ~ f N Y y^ t, 4 a ~r 0 0 i- PARCEL INSIGHT. P Parcel Insight Radius Map Report Report ID: 1088 Date: 312512010 II \ Trades and Martin Properties 12305 SE 316TH ST AUBURN, WA 98092 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 /4 Mile Detail Map 1 Overview Map 2 Non-Exact Match Map 3 Tabular Summary of Findings 4 Exact Match Summary 5 Exact Match Details 6 Disclaimer 10 Government Record Tracking 1 1 Report 1088 page i 1 /4 Mile Detail Map { 11 ~n L 1 'we Paf Address Search Primary Highway Park 41 Release ~ Secondary Highway Water Use © Main Road Use Restriction E3 ~M Street Q 118 114 Mile Report 1088 page 1 i Overview Map F~ D F H 3 4 _ a .r. i Y£ Pr PI t fw `s E C L1 ~ , L a E. Address Search = Primary Highway Paris Release Secondary Highway Water Use Main Road Use Restriction Li Street Mile Report 1088 page 2 Non-Exact Match Map B b F H J - Z f A- 3333 r . a e, , T E ~ 311 f ~ A y f.' f as 10 . - Address Search Primary Highway Park Release El = Secondary Highway Water >d Use Main toad - Street y Use Restriction L, J, o /2 1 M49 Report 1088 page 3 Tabular Summary of ;Findings RELEASE + A site listed in a database that documents a release of hazardous material(s). / USE V A site listed in a database that documents the use of hazardous material(s), but not a release of hazardous material(s). _ USE RESTRICTION 0 A site listed in a database that documents a restriction on the use of the site related to a release of a hazardous material(s) or a formal oversight decision from a government agency- Distance Ln O Ln O O O O - ~ O O O w0 + Total by . Subject °O N L° ~ °O Map Map Class Property o 0 0 0 - Class. RELEASE + 2 2 4 USE ;V USE RESTRICTION Q Distance N Q Ln Q O O O /r 0 8 0 0 + Total by Search Subject °o N Q ^ Oo Database Database Radius Property d d o o - Type NPL + 1.00 M RCRA CORRACTS + 1.00 M RCRA TSD V 0.50 M CERCLIS + 0.50 M CERCLIS NFRAP + 0.50 M ERNS t 0.00. M RCRA LQG V 0.25 M RCRA SQG V 0.25 M 1 1 RCRA CESQG Q 0.25 M 1 1 LUST ACTIVE TRIBAL + 0.50 M LUST INACTIVE TRIBAL + 0.50 M BROWNFIELDS U 0.50 M INST ENG CONTROLS 0 0.50-M HMIRS + 0.25 M TRIS i 0.25 M CSCSL + 0.50 M 1 1 CSCSL HSL + 1.00 M CSCSL NFA + 0.50 M 1 1 SWLF STATE + 0.50 M LUST + 0.50 M 1 1 2 UST V 0.25 M 1 2 3 SWLF SEA + 0.50 M SWLF KING + 0.50 M SWLF STATE + 0.50 M DECISIONS 0 0. -50 M INST ENG CONTROLS 0 0.50 M RCRA ND V 0.00 M Totals b Distance KO2. 2 0 0 0 4 Report 1088 page 4 Exact Match Summary MAP CLASS + D 0 2 O U MGRID SITE NAME ADDRESS PI ID # DATABASES W W C 53020100 RCRA SQG I GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE 0.12504 LUST X X F6 12401 SE 320TH ST, AUBURN SE UST 53020010 CSCSL 2 BELDEN PROPERTY 0.15786 X E5 12220 SE 316TH ST, AUBURN , NW 3 KING COUNTY FIRE DIST #44 53020103 LUST F4 31204 124TH AVE SE, AUBURN 0.34864 UST X X N 4 TESORO AUBURN STATION 62056 53020104 RCRA CESQG F4 12400 SE 312TH ST, AUBURN 0.38245 CSCSL NFA X X N UST i I I i Report 1088 page 5 Exact Match Details Map ID GRID F6 PI ID # 53020100 LAT: 47.31525 LON: -122. 17639 RELEASE + 1 0.125M Site Name GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Databases: SE Address 12401 SE 320TH ST LUST UST RCRA SQG AUBURN, WA 980923699 LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Site: GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE 12401 SE 320TH Auburn, WA 98002 Facility Site Id. 52377136 Alternate Name: GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE County. King Unit. NORTHWEST Release ID Release Notification Release Status Release Status Media Affected Date Change Date 4181 0112911993 0112911993 Cleanup Started soil 4181 0112911993 0610111995 Reported Cleaned Soil Up UST Underground Storage Tanks Site: GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE 12401 SE 320TH AUBURN, WA 98002 Facility Site Id. 52377136 County.• King Unit. NORTHWEST Tank ID Tank Name Status Inst. Date Capacity Cmpt./ID Substance 6584 1 Closed in 1964-12-31 116697 Heating Fuel Place 6557 2 Removed 1964-12-31 116670 Heating Fuel 6620 3 Removed 1964-12-31 116733 Heating Fuel 6513 4 Removed 1964-12-31 116626 Heating Fuel 6581 5 Closed in 1964-12-31 116694 Heating Fuel Place 6517 6 Closed in 1964-12-31 116630 Heating Fuel Place 6641 7 Removed 1964-12-31 116754 Heating Fuel 6470 8 Closed in 1964-12-31 116583 Place 1295 MC-REGULAR Removed 1964-12-31 111319 Leaded Gasoline 23933 MC-UNLEADE Removed 1964-12-31 1124265 Unleaded D Gasoline 9187 TI-WASTE OIL Removed 1964-12-31 111 TO 119342 1,100 Gallons 618286 MC DIESEL Removed 1992-10-30 11592556 Diesel 16089 MC-1 Removed 1992 11-03 2,001 to 1116330 Unleaded 4,999 Gallons Gasoline RCRA SQG RCRA Small Quantity Generator Site: GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE 12401 SE 320TH ST AUBURN, WA 98002 HANDLER ID: WAD980738355 NAILS DESC: Junior Colleges CONTACT NAME: FRED CREEK FOUND VIOLATION: N TSD ACTIVITY: N Report 1088 page 6 Exact Match Details Map ID GRID F6 PI ID # 53020100 LAT.' 47.31525 LON: -122.17639 RELEASE + 1 0. 125 M Site Name GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Databases: SE Address 12401 SE 320TH ST LUST UST RCRA SQG AUBURN, WA 980923699 Report Submission History Category Report Date LQG 1213112005 SQG 12/31/2003,12/31/2007,02/21/2008 CESQG RCRA ND 12/31/1990 Last Report Details: Site Name: GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE Seq Number: 19 Received Date: 0212112008 Waste Activity Type: RECYCLER ACTIVITY Transfer Facility: Federal Waste Generator: Small Quanity Generator State Waste Generator: Medium Quantity Generator Map ID GRID E5 PI ID # 53020010 LAT.- 47.31898 LON: -122:17872 RELEASE + 2 Databases: 0.158 M Site Name BELDEN PROPERTY NW Address 12220 SE 316TH ST CSCSL AUBURN, WA 98092 CSCSL Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List Site: BELDEN PROPERTY 12220 SE 316TH ST AUBURN, WA 98002 Facility Site Id: 52619782 County Name: King Responsible Unit: NORTHWEST Ecology Status Code: Awating Site Hazard Assessment (SHA) Program Plan Code: Awaiting SHA Independent Status Code: 0 Affected Id. ( Soil / Suspected) Confirmed Contaminates Suspected Contaminates EPA Priority Pollutants - Metals and Cyanide Metals - Other Petroleum Products Non-Halogenated Solvents Map ID GRID F4 PI ID # 53020103 LAT.- 47.32204 LON: -122.17632 RELEASE + 3 0.349 M Site Name KING COUNTY FIRE DIST #44 Databases: N Address 31204 124TH AVE SE LUST UST AUBURN, WA 98092 LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Site: KING COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 44 31204 124TH AVE SE Auburn, WA 98002 Facility Site Id: 82241794 Alternate Name: FIRE STATION 91 County. King Report 1088 page 7 Exact Match Details Map ID GRID F4 PI ID # 53020103 LAT.' 47.32204 LON: -122. 17632 RELEASE + 3 Databases: 0.349 M Site Name KING COUNTY FIRE DIST #44 N Address 31204 124TH AVE SE LUST UST AUBURN, WA 98092 Unit: NORTHWEST Release ID Release Notification Release Status Release Status Media Affected Date Change Date 489575 1113011998 08/0311998 Awaiting Cleanup Soil 489575 1113011998 0812811998 Cleanup Started Soil 489575 1113011998 7113011998 Reported Cleaned Soil Up UST Underground Storage Tanks Site: KING COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 44 31204 124TH AVE SE AUBURN, WA 98002 Facility Site Id: 82241794 County: King Unit: NORTHWEST Tank ID Tank Name Status Inst. Date Capacity Cmpt./ID Substance 18891 9111D Removed 7981-07-15 111 TO 1119172 Diesel 1,100 Gallons 16586 9712G Removed 1981-07-15 7,101 to 1116830 Leaded 2,000 Gallons Gasoline Map ID GRID F4 PI ID # 53020104 LAT.- 47.32253 LON: -722.17630 RELEASE + 4 Databases: 0.382 M Site Name TESORO AUBURN STATION 62056 N Address 12400 SE 372TH ST RCRA CESQG CSCSL NFA UST AUBURN, WA 980923747 RCRA CESQG RCRA Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator Site: TESORO AUBURN STATION 62056 12400 SE 312TH AUBURN, WA 98002 HANDLER ID: WA0000075382 NAICS DESC: Gasoline Stations with Convenience Stores CONTACT NAME: BRIAN FREDERICK TSD ACTIVITY: N Report Submission History Category Report Date LQG SQG CESQG 0310212000 RCRA ND Last Report Details: Site Name: TESORO AUBURN STATION 62056 Seq Number: 5 Received Date: 0310212000 Transfer Facility: Federal Waste Generator: Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator State Waste Generator: Small Quantity Generator Report 1088 page 8 Exact Match Details Map ID GRID F4 PI ID # 53020104 LAT.' 47.32253 LON: -122.17630 RELEASE I 4 0.382 M Site Name TESORO AUBURN STATION 62056 Databases: N Address 12400 SE 312TH ST RCRA CESQG CSCSL NFA UST AUBURN, WA 980923147 CSCSL NFA Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List No Further Action Site: SHELL 403 12400 SE 312TH AUBURN, 98002, WA Facility Site ID: 57759323 County Name: King COUNTY No Further Action Code: NFA after assessment, TRAP, or VCP No Further Action Date: 0910512002 UST Underground Storage Tanks Site: SHELL-403 12400 312TH ST SE AUBURN, WA 98002 Facility Site Id: 57759323 County: King Unit. NORTHWEST Tank ID Tank Name Status Inst. Date Capacity Cmpt./ID Substance 36681 1 Removed 1982-06-01 1137203 Leaded Gasoline 36631 2 Removed 1982-06-01 1137153 Unleaded Gasoline 36698 3 Removed 1982-06-01 1137220 Unleaded Gasoline 6518 3A Operational 1993-09-17 5,000 to 116631 Unleaded 9,999 Gallons Gasoline f'"1 9665 4A Operational 1993-09-17 5,000 to 119822 Diesel 9,999 Gallons 11072 2A Operational 1993-09-17 5,000 to 1111248 Unleaded 9,999 Gallons Gasoline 8545 lA Operational 1993-09-17 5,000 to 118692 Unleaded 9,999 Gallons Gasoline Report 1088 page 9 Disclaimer Information in this Report has been collected and aggregated by Parcel Insight, Inc. from government agencies and other publicly-available repositories that likely contain inaccuracies and incomplete data. The purpose of the Parcel Insight, Inc. aggregation is to provide our Customer with information in an easy to use and understandable format. Parcel Insight, Inc. cannot ensure the accuracy of the data that was aggregated and maintained by others. WE DO NOT WARRANT THAT THE REPORT WILL BE ERROR-FREE. TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, WE DISCLAIM AND EXCLUDE ALL REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION IN THE REPORT, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, OTHER THAN THOSE EXPRESSLY IDENTIFIED IN THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF NON-INFRINGEMENT, TITLE, SATISFACTORY QUALITY, ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, OUR ENTIRE LIABILITY, AND YOUR ONLY REMEDY, FOR A BREACH OF A WARRANTY WILL BE EITHER REPLACEMENT OF THE REPORT, OR RETURN OF THE FEES YOU PAID FOR THE PRODUCT OR SERVICES. PARCEL INSIGHT, INC. AND ITS THIRD PARTY LICENSORS WILL NOT BE LIABLE IN ANY EVENT TO YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, REGARDLESS OF THE CAUSE, FOR THE EFFECTIVENESS OR ACCURACY OF THE PRODUCTS, FOR THE COST OF PROCURING REPLACEMENT GOODS OR SERVICES, OR FOR LOST PROFITS OR LOST SALES, OR FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY, MULTIPLE OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING FROM OR OCCASIONED BY YOUR USE OF THE REPORTS, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. The information in this report is provided "as is" and is not to be construed as legal advice. The information in the report is copyrighted by Parcel Insight, Inc. 2007, all rights reserved, and reproduction in any form is prohibited without prior written permission of Parcel Insight, Inc. Report 1088 page 10 Government Record Tracking Database: Brown fields Grant Sites Map Class: Use Restriction Contact Number. Web Page: http://www.epa.govlbrownfieldslindex.html Date of Database: 2008-04-01 T00:00:00 The Brownfields Management System (BMS) is the official U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) database of the Brownfields Program. It is designed to assist EPA in collecting, tracking, and updating information, as well as reporting on the major activities and accomplishments of the various Brownfields grant programs. BMS captures data on grantee activities (assessment, cleanup and redevelopment), funding, job training, and details on cooperative partners and leveraging efforts - a central objective of the Brownfields Program. Database: CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned Map Class: Release Contact Number. Web Page: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/siteslcursiteslindex.htm Date of Database: 2009-1 1-30700:00:00 The No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) or Archived" designation means that, to the best of the EPA's knowledge, Superfund has completed its assessment at a site, and has determined no further steps to list this site on the NPL will be taken unless information indicating this decision was not appropriate or other considerations make a recommendation for listing appropriate at a later time. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may perform a minimal level of assessment work at a site while it is archived if site conditions change and/or new information becomes available and in these cases, the Archive designation is removed and the site is returned to the CERCLIS inventory if more sustentative assessment and/or any cleanup work is necessary under the Federal Superfund program. An archive decision does not necessarily mean that there is no hazard associated with a given site; it means only that based upon available information, the location is not judged to be a potential NPL site. Sites are archived as historical records so EPA does not needlessly repeat the investigations in the future. The States will coordinate with EPA to determine if any sites should be returned to CERCLIS because of newly identified contamination problems at the site. It is important to note the sites on CERCLIS and the archived list will change as the sites are being investigated or if new information becomes available. Database: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System Map Class: Release Contact Number: Web Page: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/siteslsitein fo. htm Date of Database: 2009-1 1-30700:00:00 The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) list contains information on hazardous waste sites, potentially hazardous waste sites and remedial activities. CERCLIS is a database used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to track activities conducted under its Superfund program. Specific information is tracked for each individual site. The database includes sites that are on the National Priorities List (NPL) or being considered for the NPL. The CERCLIS Database displays site information for NPL sites (i.e., sites proposed to the NPL, currently on the final NPL or deleted from the final NPL. NPL Sites are listed separately on the Report 1088 page 1 1 Government Record Tracking NPL data set. Once a site is added to CERCLIS, the next step in evaluating the potential problem is the completion of a preliminary assessment (PA). The purpose of the PA is to determine whether the site warrants further Superfund investigation. The PA is typically an information gathering phase for which sampling does not take place. A PA is usually completed within one year of a site being listed in CERCLIS. Based on the conclusions of the PA, a site could be recommended for a) no further action under the EPA Superfund program; b) a sampling site investigation to collect data for further evaluation and possible nomination to the NPL; or c) an emergency or time-critical removal (short-term cleanup). Active CERCLIS sites are sites at which site assessment, removal, remedial, enforcement, cost recovery, or oversight activities are being planned or conducted under the Superfund program. CERCLIS excludes sites which EPA has assessed and designated "No Further Remedial Action Planned", or archive, sites. EPA is aware that the CERCLIS inventory is often used as a resource in assessing property. People conducting such assessments should not misinterpret the meaning of a site being contained in CERCLIS. Such sites are not necessarily contaminated, and sites not in CERCLIS are not necessarily contaminant-free. Database: Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List No Further Action Map Class: Release Contact Number. Web Page: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/sitesISiteLists.htm Date of Database: 2009-12-07700:00:00 No Further Action Site List This data set contains information about sites previously on the Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites list (above) that have received a No Further Action (NFA) determination. Because it is necessary to maintain historical records of sites that have been investigated and cleaned up, sites are not deleted from the database when cleanup activities are completed. Instead, a No Further Action code is entered based upon the type of NFA determination the site received. The NFA code lists the basis for the NFA determination. Database: Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List Map Class: Release Contact Number: Web Page: http://www.ecy.wa.govlprograms/tcp/sitesISiteLists.htm Date of Database: 2009-12-07T00: 00: 00 The data set contains information about sites that are undergoing cleanup and sites that are awaiting further investigation and/or cleanup by the Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program. Sites on the Hazardous Sites List (i.e., those that have been ranked using the Washington Ranking Model) are included in this data set. Within 90 days of learning of a potentially contaminated site, the Department of Ecology conducts an initial investigation of each site. If the initial investigation shows that further action is needed, the site will appear in the Confirmed & Suspected Contaminated Sites (CSCS) Report. Once remedial action has been completed, the Toxics Cleanup Program's management determines the removal of a site from the CSCS Report. The Hazardous Sites List is a subset of the CSCS Report. It contains those sites that have been ranked using the Washington Ranking Method. Site owners and operators do not necessarily agree with Ecology's determination of site status. Database: Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List Hazardous Site List Map Class: Release Contact Number. Report 1088 page 12 Government Record Tracking Web Page: http://www.ecy.wa.govlprograms/tcp/sitesISiteLists.htm Date of Database: 2009-12-07700:00:00 The Hazardous Sites List (HSL) is required by law 173-340-330 WAC. It includes all sites which have been assessed and ranked using the Washington Ranking Method (WARM). Also listed are National Priorities List (NPL) sites. The categories of evaluation are linear and include several steps. The Initial Investigation (1I) is a brief investigation conducted within 90 days of receiving a site discovery report. The II step provides enough information to determine if the site needs further investigation, emergency cleanup, or no further action. If further action is required, early notice letters are sent to site owners, operators, etc. inviting them to work cooperatively with us to resolve any contamination problems, AND the site proceeds to the next step. The Site Hazard Assessment (SHA) is an assessment to confirm the presence of hazardous substances and to determine the relative risk the site poses to human health and the environment. (Note: Some SHAs are conducted by Ecology staff while others are conducted by local health districts / departments.) The Hazard Ranking (WARM Score) includes the results of the Site Hazard Assessment step that are used in the Washington Ranking Method (WARM) to yield a WARM score. The WARM score is a number between 1 and 5, where a score of 1 represents the highest level of risk and 5 indicates the lowest assessed risk. A zero indicates that the site is either on the federal National Priorities List (NPL) or is a sub-site or operable unit of an NPL site. NPL sites are ranked under the federal Hazard Ranking System (HRS). This WARM score is not removed at the time of a No Further Action determination as it is kept for historical purposes. Database: Ecology Digest 26 (Catalog of Formal Oversight Decision Documents, Orders and Decrees) Map Class: Use Restriction Contact Number: Web Page: http://www.ecy.wa.govlprograms/tcp/sitesIDIGEST°o2O26. r-~ Pd f Date of Database: 2009-02-01 T00:00:00 The Toxics Cleanup Program maintains a list of all formal oversight decision documents under the Model Toxics Control Act that have been agreed to and signed by the Program's manager or designee. These decision documents include all Consent Decrees, Prospective Purchaser Consent Decrees, Agreed Orders, and Enforcement Orders under the Model Toxics Control Act. Database: Emergency Response Notification System Map Class: Release Contact Number: Web Page: http://www. nrc. uscg. millwdbcgilwdbcgi. exelWWWUSER/WE BDB. foia_query. show_parms Date of Database: 2009-05-18700:00:00 The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) is a national computer data base used to store information on releases of oil and hazardous substances. ERNS supports the Emergency Response and the Title Ill program. The ERNS program is a cooperative effort among EPA Headquarters, the Department of Transportation (DOT), National Transportation Systems Center (NTSC), the ten EPA Regions, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and the National Response Center (NRC). ERNS provides the most comprehensive data compiled on release notifications of oil and hazardous substances in the United States. When a release report is submitted to Federal authorities (e.g., NRC or Regional offices), the individual reporting is asked a series of questions regarding the release (e.g., type, location, volume). r•` Information concerning all releases originally reported to the NRC or EPA Regional offices is entered into local Report 1088 page 13 Government Record Tracking computers and transmitted electronically from the NRC or EPA Regional office to the NTSC, where it becomes part of the ERNS national data base. The procedures for maintaining the initial reports differs between the NRC and the EPA Regions. The NRC maintains electronic copies of all spill reports as they were initially received and does not make any changes to spill reports once they have been entered into the system. Reports received by the NRC contain information that may be valuable to the on-scene coordinators, as well as to enforcement personnel. The information received by the NRC is sent to the Regional offices through the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (VNTSC). Since these reports may be used in enforcement actions, it is necessary to maintain a copy of the spill report as it was originally reported. Each EPA Region maintains its own Region-specific data base, which is a subset of the national data base. Initial spill reports made directly to an EPA Region are maintained as hard copies and kept in the individual Regional office. When additional information on a release notification is obtained, it is also entered at the Regional level and electronically transmitted to the national system. An initial and modified copy of each report is maintained at VNTSC to preserve data integrity. Database: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System Map Class: Release Contact Number. Web Page: http://hazmat.dot.gov/pubslinclhmisframe.htm Date of Database: 2009-05-18700:00:00 The Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting System (HMIRS) contains data on spills, releases, or other incidents involving hazardous materials during the course of transportation. All modes of transportation are included except pipeline and bulk marine transportation. The data set contains the Incident Report Form 5800.1 data submitted under the requirements of Title 49 CFR 171.15 and 171.16. HMIRS of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) was established in 1971 to fulfill the requirements of the federal hazardous materials transportation law. Part 171 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR) contains the incident reporting requirements of carriers of hazardous materials. An unintentional release of hazardous materials meeting the criteria set forth in Section 171.16, 49 CFR must be reported on U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Form 5800. 1, and data from the reports received are subsequently entered in the HMIRS database. All spills meeting the following criteria to be reported to PHMSA: 1) As a direct result of hazardous materials a person is killed or receives injuries requiring hospitalization, estimated property damage exceeds $50,000, an evacuation of the general public lasts for one or more hours, a major transportation artery or facility is closed for one or more hours, or the operational flight pattern or routing of an aircraft is altered, 2) Fire, breakage, spillage, or suspected contamination occurs involving shipment of radioactive materials or infectious substances, 3) There has been a release of a marine pollutant exceeding 450 L or 400 kg, or 4) Any hazardous material is unintentionally released from a package or any quantity of hazardous waste is discharged during transportation. Database: Institutional and Engineering Controls Map Class: Use Restriction Contact Number: Web Page: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/index.htm Date of Database: 2009-1 1-30700:00:00 This data set identifies RCRA and NPL sites with institutional and/or engineering controls in place. Database: Institutional and Engineering Controls Map Class: Use Restriction Contact Number: Report 1088 page 14 Government Record Tracking i~ Web Page: http://Www.ecy.wa.govlprograms/tcp/sitesISiteLists.htm Date of Database: 2009-12-07700:00:00 This data set is a subset of CSCSL and identifies sites where a remedial action was conducted, residual contamination was left on site and on-going institutional controls required. Database: King County Abandoned Landfills Map Class: Release Contact Number. Web Page: http://www. spl. org/ Date of Database: Abandoned landfill study in King County by Seattle-King County Dept. of Public Health. Environmental Health Division, 1985. Database: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Map Class: Release Contact Number. Web Page: http://www.ecy.wa.govlprograms/tcp/sitesISiteLists.htm Date of Database: 2009-12-07700:00:00 The LUST data file contains information on UST Cleanup sites and cleanup history. Sites that have been cleaned up and sites currently being cleaned up are included in the data set. Sites are categorized based on the activities taken. Awaiting Cleanup means the site has been discovered or reported release, yet no active cleanup measures taken or Site check (identified the source) begun or completed, yet no active cleanup measures taken or site characterization begun or completed, yet no active cleanup measures taken. Cleanup Started means responsible party has initiated physical, biological, or chemical management of release, e.g. soil excavated, groundwater pumped, vapors extracted, free product removed, oxygen added, etc., site investigations and emergency responses (e.g. venting explosive vapors, providing bottled water) do not qualify as activities under cleanup started. Monitoring means groundwater monitoring is the only activity occurring at the site or site has been characterized, only low levels of soil and/or groundwater contamination remain, and natural attenuation is the chosen cleanup method or conformational monitoring following active cleanup measures. Reported Cleaned Up means owner or consultant reports that contamination has been cleaned up and/or some soil contamination may remain under existing structures or in otherwise inaccessible areas if groundwater is not threatened and there has been no migration of contamination into the structure and cleanup report has not been formally reviewed by Ecology. A formal review could determine that the site has not been cleaned up to MTCA standards. No Further Action means the cleanup report has been formally reviewed by Ecology under the fee-based Voluntary Cleanup Program and resulted in a No Further Action status and institutional controls may have been required due to soil contamination that may remain under existing structures or in otherwise inaccessible areas. Database: National Priority List Map Class: Release Contact Number: Web Page: http://www.epa.govlsuperfundlindex.htm Date of Database: 2009-1 1-30700:00:00 Report 1088 page 15 Government Record Tracking The National Priorities List (NPL) is an information and management tool that is a part of the Superfund cleanup process. The NPL serves primarily informational purposes, identifying for the States and the public those sites or other releases that appear to warrant remedial actions. The identification of a site for the NPL is intended primarily to guide the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in: determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of the human health and environmental risks associated with a site; identifying what Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)-financed remedial actions may be appropriate; notifying the public of sites EPA believes warrant further investigation; and serving notice to potentially responsible parties that EPA may initiate CERCLA-financed remedial action. Inclusion of a site on the NPL does not in itself reflect a judgment of the activities of its owner or operator, it does not require those persons to undertake any action, nor does it assign liability to any person. Section 105(a)(8)(8) of CERCLA, as amended, requires that the statutory criteria provided by the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) be used to prepare a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The NPL list is also known as Appendix 8 of the National Contingency Plan. The Federal Register (FR) Notices for NPL Updates page provides a list of FR Notices for proposed and final NPL Updates. The Superfund cleanup process begins with site discovery or notification to EPA of possible releases of hazardous substances. Sites are discovered by various parties, including citizens, State agencies, and EPA Regional offices. Once discovered, sites are entered into the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), EPA's computerized inventory of potential hazardous substance release sites (view Superfund Site Information). EPA then evaluates the potential for a release of hazardous substances from the site through these steps in the Superfund cleanup process. Superfund was created in 1980 when Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to clean up the nation's uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Under the Superfund program, abandoned, accidentally spilled, or illegally dumped hazardous wastes that pose a current or future threat to human health or the environment are cleaned up. EPA works closely with communities, potentially responsible parties, scientists, researchers, contractors, and state, local, tribal, and federal authorities on site cleanup. Together with these groups, EPA identifies hazardous waste sites, tests the conditions of the sites, develops cleanup plans, and cleans up the sites. The site areas depicted in this polygon data set have been developed by EPA solely for the purpose of a modeling exercise being conducted for the Superfund Workload Assessment Project. These data are not intended for and should not be used or refrenced for any other purpose. Database: RCRA Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator Map Class: Use Contact Number: Web Page: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswerloswlgen_translgenerate.ht m#pagecontents Date of Database: 2009-1 1-30700:00:00 Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQG) generate 100 kilograms or less per month of hazardous waste, or 1 kilogram or less per month of acutely hazardous waste. Requirements for CESQG's include (see also 40 CFR 261.5 CESQG's must identify all the hazardous waste generated. CESQG's may not accumulate more than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste at any time. CESQG's must ensure that hazardous waste is delivered to a person or facility who is authorized to manage it. Database: RCRA Corrective Action Report Map Class: Release Contact Number. Web Page: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswerlhazwast%alindex.htm Date of Database: 2009-1 1-30700:00:00 Report 1088 page 16 Government Record Tracking The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action (CORRACTS) list is a summary of those facilities where corrective action is occurring. The RCRA Corrective Action Program, run by EPA and 41 authorized states and territories, compels responsible parties to address the investigation and cleanup of hazardous releases themselves. RCRA Corrective Action differs from Superfund in that Corrective Action sites generally have viable operators and on-going operations. RCRA grants EPA and authorized states the authority to regulate hazardous waste management facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. Although EPA guidelines are designed to prevent toxic releases at RCRA facilities, accidents or other activities have sometimes released pollutants into soil, ground water, surface water and air. By the year 2020, EPA and the authorized states plan to have largely completed the work of implementing final remedies at all facilities requiring Corrective Action. (See Goal 3 of the Office of Solid Waste's 2020 Vision for more details.) While working toward the 2020 goal, EPA decided to ensure that sites presenting the greatest risk to human health and the environment are dealt with first. Accordingly, the Corrective Action Program has pledged to select a final remedy at 30% and put a final remedy in place at 20% of 1,968 highest-priority sites by 2008. Database: RCRA Large Quantity Generator Map Class: Use Contact Number. Web Page: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswerloswlgen_translgenerate.ht m#pagecontents Date of Database: 2009-1 1-30700:00:00 Large Quantity Generators (LQG) generate 1,000 kilograms per month or more of hazardous waste, or more than 1 kilogram per month of acutely hazardous waste. LQG's may only accumulate waste on site for 90 days, but certain exceptions apply. LQG's do not have a limit on the amount of hazardous waste accumulated on site. There must always be at least one employee available to respond to an emergency. This employee is the emergency coordinator responsible for coordinating all emergency response measures. LQG's must have detailed, written contingency plans for handling emergencies. LQG's must submit a biennial hazardous waste report. Database: RCRA No Designation Map Class: Use Contact Number. Web Page: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswerloswlgen_translgenerate.ht m#pagecontents Date of Database: 2009-1 1-30700:00:00 RCRA sites that are identified as having a RCRA generator identified number but that are not identified as a large quantity generator, small quantity generator, conditionally exempt small quantity generator, treatment storage or disposal (TSD) facility, or RCRA corrective action sites. Database: RCRA Non Corracts TSD Map Class: Use Contact Number. Web Page: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswerloswltsds.htm Date of Database: 2009-1 1-30700:00:00 Report 1088 page 17 Government Record Tracking Through the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Congress directed EPA to create regulations to manage hazardous waste from "the cradle to the grave." Under this mandate, EPA developed strict requirements for all aspects of hazardous waste management including the treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) of hazardous waste. TSDS include those facilities that treat, store, and/or dispose hazardous waste. TSDS are the last link in the cradle to the grave waste management system. The requirements for TSDS are found in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 and are more extensive than those that apply to hazardous waste generators or transporters. Database: RCRA Small Quantity Generator Map Class: Use Contact Number. Web Page: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswerloswlgen_translgenerate,.ht m#pagecontents Date of Database: 2009-1 1-30T00:00:00 Small Quantity Generators (SQG) generate more than 100 kilograms, but less than 1,000 kilograms, of hazardous waste per month. SQG's may accumulate hazardous waste on site for 180 days without a permit (or 270 days if shipping a distance greater than 200 miles). The quantity of hazardous on site waste must never exceed 6,000 kilograms. There must always be at least one employee available to respond to an emergency. This employee is the emergency coordinator responsible for coordinating all emergency response measures. SQG's are not required to have detailed, written contingency plans. Database: Seattle Abandoned Landfills Map Class: Release Contact Number. Web Page: http://Www.spl.orgl Date of Database: 1984-07-30T00:00:00 Abandoned landfill study in the City of Seattle by Seattle-King County Dept. of Public Health. Environmental Health Division, 1984. Database: Solid Waste Facility Database Map Class: Release Contact Number. Web Page: http://www.ecy.wa.govlbiblio10407019.html Date of Database: 2007-01-01 T00:00:00 The solid waste facility database contains disposal information for landfills, incinerators, and transfer facilities. The types of facilities included are those that are permitted under chapter 173-350 WAC, Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling and chapter 173-351 WAC, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Information in the solid waste facility database is obtained through annual reporting forms sent to all landfill types (municipal, inert/demolition, limited purpose/special use, and wood waste landfills) and to waste-to-energy/incinerators. Report 1088 page 18 Government Record Tracking Database: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Map Class: Release Contact Number: Web Page: http://www.epa.govltrondex.htm Date of Database: 2009-05-18700:00:00 The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) contains information on releases of nearly 650 chemicals and chemical categories from industries including manufacturing, metal and coal mining, electric utilities, and commercial hazardous waste treatment, among others. The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) primary purpose is to inform communities and citizens of chemical hazards in their areas. Sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA require businesses to report the locations and quantities of chemicals stored on-site to state and local governments in order to help communities prepare to respond to chemical spills and similar emergencies. EPCRA Section 313 requires EPA and the States to annually collect data on releases and transfers of certain toxic chemicals from industrial facilities, and make the data available to the public in the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). In 1990 Congress passed the Pollution Prevention Act which required that additional data on waste management and source reduction activities be reported under TRI. The goal of TRI is to empower citizens, through information, to hold companies and local governments accountable in terms of how toxic chemicals are managed. EPA compiles the TRI data each year and makes it available. The TRI program has expanded significantly since its inception in 1987. The Agency has issued rules to roughly double the number of chemicals included in the TRI to approximately 650. Seven new industry sectors have been added to expand coverage significantly beyond the original covered industries, i.e. manufacturing industries. Most recently, the Agency has reduced the reporting thresholds for certain persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals in order to be able to provide additional information to the public on these chemicals. Database: Tribal Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Active Map Class: Release Contact Number. Web Page: http://www.epa.gov/oustldirectivlod961015.htm Date of Database: 2006-11 -01 T00:00:00 The list contains information about "active" leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) sites on federally recognized Native American tribal lands. The sites are considered active because they are still subject to future investigation and/or remediation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The tribes are sovereign entities subject to federal laws. Underground storage tanks located on tribal lands generally are not subject to state laws. As a result, unless a state acts as a tribe's agent pursuant to a formal agreement with a tribe, EPA and the tribe are responsible for implementing and enforcing the UST program on tribal lands. Database: Tribal Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Inactive Map Class: Release Contact Number: Web Page: http://www.epa.gov/OUSTIdirectivld961015a.htm Date of Database: 2006-11 -01 T00:00:00 The list contains information about "inactive" leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) sites on federally recognized Native American tribal lands. The sites are considered inactive because they have been investigated and/or remediated and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has concurred with the inactive status. The tribes are sovereign entities subject to federal laws. Underground storage tanks located on tribal lands generally are not subject to state laws. As a Report 1088 page 19 Government Record Tracking result, unless a state acts as a tribe's agent pursuant to a formal agreement with a tribe, EPA and the tribe are ,,,,w responsible for implementing and enforcing the UST program on tribal lands. Database: Underground Storage Tanks Map Class: Use Contact Number: Web Page: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/sites/SiteLists.htm Date of Database: 2009-12-07700:00:00 The UST list contains information for UST sites and tanks in Washington. Both operational and closed USTs are on the list. UM that are excluded from -the list include those that have not been registered with the Washington Department of Ecology. Non-registered tanks generally include farm or residential tanks of 1,100 gallons or less capacity storing motor fuel for noncommercial purposes; tanks storing heating oil for use on the premises where stored; Septic tanks; Pipeline facilities (including gathering lines) regulated under the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, or the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979, or which is an intrastate pipeline facility regulated under State laws; Surface impoundments, pits, ponds, or lagoons; Storm water or waste water collection systems; Flow-through process tanks; Liquid traps or associated gathering lines directly related to oil or gas production and gathering operations; Tanks on or above the floor of underground areas, such as basements or tunnels; Tanks with a capacity of 110 gallons or less. The substances covered under the notification requirements apply to USTs. Database: Washington Unauthorized Tire Piles Map Class: Release Contact Number. Web Page: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0507043.htm1 Date of Database: 2005-1 1-15T00:00: 00 The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) conducted a study of unauthorized tire piles in Washington. The legislature required this study to be completed and submitted by Ecology to the appropriate standing committees of the legislature by November 15, 2005. The report and appendices present a detailed discussion of how this information was collected and assembled. This study identified 54 sites statewide with unauthorized accumulations of scrap tires. Site mapping was completed and the number of scrap tires was estimated. One site (Goldendale-Tire Shredders) accounts for more than two-thirds of the calculated scrap tires and more than half of the total estimated cleanup costs. Of the 54 sites, only five require more than 10 estimated on-site days to complete the individual cleanups. Report 1088 page 20 ~ a s ; } ...tea « t ~Seledtea0s APPENDIX D ° ✓ tarical Research Documents at f _ E a t S t ~ ~ 1" rv 1 1 r y . '70 V% VIA r, ~ t~ +!f. f!,"u'S eta•:. .•r!r!tL`«°s'.1/.~':•~• fr`"rs •r`~;' ertd"s1'.!~~ 6^~~'/~~.1 .~~tp~_ a ~.•,'a'""e'.'e~ ~ !'"•Y"a't"" r • y f '"~tlJ*o' e"`t•" .'s"ate. ~.~.M1 .'r.4~•r~... a.,."". ~r,, ! r"e .yra e" _ +'i°: "si"•~.`,°~"~`r~e'i •y'. ~I i .•p`y- • ai~, ' ~F`: i mew a < ° II +++~~~PPP e,•`.*^°`'. °1 e•`'," ~ `""I' "r ihi*i•rt s`s `t".°e`f~"!t f !'t i' 'rrtr# ° °°t" "•:."•>at • a wit I e"~ "4"b"i" R r i " e s relr°♦ fr e y"r .l a" • f ~ai J Y~I r e° ~raa.• i i Y• as~ • k ° w e`i v i{ r♦•° a a+ #"T f°tra`" a°1r+ 1 •f A a i°at I •e"Y t +eirt - _ ."B"s r W • F°T° `:'a'~91 .s r r ♦ ~ {~•,,w t • ° * e r I"I•i r !r"a'i`"`l's°eY•r f°•' ••~p}.j/ a'. T • ~*e'a ee"'aa ~TJr•~w li`; . i ..ta ieM`a`i°a •♦rs ya, 4~s P i i i"r° r'° I a . r! ♦ e I I. t f'e " t r i Ire`B'r ♦ r r a, R+'~` . a i t"i~.".;~~ ~►%fa ~ rrs'!`'a"w` i~ ' - I~'•~ »~'•"'eeo•t w°'."$'"a ewlr 'e~= i'~je A°'•' +iiwa~f~r. e ea t i". `t r`i a +'t".. :•a• as~'~ 1►,~~rl" a, .':.a.` e'r•.',' J . l ~~~i t•i°'r,°.a!fi~I`t`.",ti' per°°.'"~+ ! a f~ i rie~t`. lrax'~"r`~ . ,•er~.°~ s s'"a" •'ay'r* srj ♦ ` ~+rlr ~'i l .r~t sre"a of"e`i t•~lrm's~""".'~"^ - - .'i`. ~~1~~ uF•rt."""+rs"tt~`~ fs"f~e'f ~e~ar "a`.'.~°~. - tr : ~e : `r'$r°,.. sr+~". a e'.~ . e". ~,.+`tw t~ o~r•"". e r`r"'q w ~ we•f'.~rw" ~JI e d t • k'a"y w ♦ a M •w•° a"'"""-"°^.'•••^", •i :°bx a ~i s r•.•<"°"s","s"y^ ~~~i t s'. '~'.Tr . ' e'I ~~a`.rr ~~{t'..r/~ •r' 'Ji'ef• . r . . + f •r> eR a ir` .'r°° . eft •"r fr•~rYt~I'•~ a " ir{ +y ii",w 1`ai~+'.°.^••.` ~r•:•`••'"°~•~°~"+"^°`,"•x y"~",',^•'a°... ..~•+i~_ 9 _ .aJ°°®i °'rryr,µ$ " A.;t}' IItA,!• . i'.. frr.* P •'"'1 ' 1 f p'r ! • °f•.ri . d • w'fY near ,arfq~` t rest a' arsra"! .ii I"e`a'I'.'a'. i s+~' •"rf~° +"e'!' j.'.°.' l~f~'f 's+fJa".`.`~ ...~.fi1'" ~ - - . ,d a t f'f i r r 1~. t f. P s " Fa . t ~ "•}~~i s•t°i . ~g/,~ °yf !e's tl~a«"• . i i a rr i~"..'•'r.t"!+ ~.a''°o°w`~~. ~~s,r+.. .a ' `f1f1'.:'a :f " "'r`w • • . a~~ a"~f f# • . ~ Iraa s Y e b®le.i • - ;~i f •`d'~"` ~„d t"~rr. r .P.".~.".~.r~`.`.°.` s•~•st O irp;': . WO W., i ra i . ers• J`t"Y"e " . a"it •1B"e •~r`e _ »rtwt r fTy~f! w i f e"~a°. a~1° "°I Yri °,fL1 i't . }`rrY.rlrlial ~ °u""°°"•T •^,ii'"r "r~~~~. " + ° //pyytj./~~•__{{~s` r""°""."'°°"'r*s"i•a•~•°R°i I•!`4`i'r".•*" ••2 !Iii ~`r! I Vii` ~i / • + 1~"° •"tbk , ear" ^ T di 6 e"fr!"i I i~~i~~~,~.~~jjl/~~°is-~f t•I°. . ~ ae~~ .".'.:'."e':"t"~`: " e a s r e . ara r ♦ . •r•: f"/'!wa II+Ii ~ . iii". ! . e " aRI~ f"` e'a".`.'re.r.r: •".•.`v ~ a . ~e . ter:. . v . ierrra*. rfw' t~rYa+trrt"+.'."~!:" rep .Y.°e µ.~i r ! 4s'a✓r . ,"f~`rra .'a' . a . fr+", •"rIi`I I t ari'.. ~•'r f'.". . I r r~. .~'."d"s .'a°.°.'al.r~""rl ,r'i"' e: • ! ♦wr r~~Iw . ~r " ~e . . L`e"'dwes'r"r'. i r } t ~a• 'rat i`:S i e , w e r*tt • . r « "ei '.a.' °"",`r• r a~a t e~l~+'i°.':: « . sr.~.rr°e .err. r' i rte. s°`+"drJ"s/ weer®'`«.~i~ ~+r . e ""r". aaI a'~Tr"e•-i: a`.`:. ! . i e~:.a . r Jet . wwe . ZIA' . r~~a ,bra r•+"° .`rrr `ari/'1'.`e~'. a'cre'°`r"~''`•° r fw . .°..I f "e` a:;~.+f•~ o.p - ;;fit' : Iw~.<< ~ ~ _ : a:`:•:~ .•e^e,,.°• • _ . ` erw">' « r ~'erartr . ~ seirr .".tea r . •'~"a ~ j ~~r~ ' PJp r r t rr~; _ :•r••;~erit:. d ! :':r,~.:-:-:~;-; . ! , r:~; B°~ . i if,p.~3'a .t~~~. M+f elNttt2`9 i i U`I"~Ifti"t"a`.".' eea°"r••".te`a"a ~k±`wrr•1 !ew i o6 a + j X y .w 7 a~ e'Ifr"t tl e°a'y wr I.w 1 1°~!~ lr.~r°" t !•,"t •fr! "r rr".'e sir!"s w . •Y"6`4a ria~ • !°7 r'. r.~ ww r'r~i"r ~ serf ` +'°d~'fr~ a f sr! ltsr . r t ere'a°rer`""•'"° r«'e. re. • r r o :r"'+'i ~ ~drt.''' .~~rir'i d~df" ~~n e'rw~.Iir!`.`!e. a . "i3~.'" w~~.a ~.'.'.•.'.ar~i• • ♦ ersi°ar"` 'at r" : +ryi. : •rt"°a~. . r t w~>r.r+I~~.w+"w ~t~ +~.rxs..~ ;.•r' .'r'.:`.' e'~ 's`r'~~ . • ~ f ~ ""i ar®` r"! a ..`~~•.•~•OS•a~.'• isa~•1 " rwlwi. ~r"' "'~,'f/a~!~""~ ' °~frl~•" + .°Iraa3e . rr ri t`aatala t r ".'F"x".°.": `a'"• °s ~ ~'i . ~,r~yli.fi P*:"~I : ~ ° ' tee' ot~+~r'"e .ra'~a . awl . le•r a'~i.~i a . s t`.'".".'.".:'•'t'. ~ir.'e r`:`° :°c~.`~'a. ~r°.:.`i ~e~~r'tsw.f ja~~r ! a - ••i~~•~r~,~ta ~a"~tye~ ~ I°~ r . i erb ~t"a . r ' ~ "e arI'. +e'r`+ ~~q a`arri°' °`f " e° tr". i•t+i s'Irrs o'.. a ri t • r . s .`fi . " e•«" r I .°.ft'!rr" rr°r. wrs`I • mite . ~ a •r e a err • . . e . ti .~e~a~a~r ! . : r i a e " s ! e'" `°e•e q•r"Y°. ,•'++~y • r e r"r i d s ,°r`,,•°ew. • Yi ti6 ♦ w el Ifi, .serer • ♦ • e • tr# t r r • t " . I f 11 " + wws•awtrt e'A`waw a Ia!`!c .r9 • t e a•r°s'I`•r!" frt~~.,i er°!`.re' ••e`r°> ~+f ter+tl ~`•~~'a"'`f'I`e .ai . +er ! ~ tan. .wf~a" e.:n .°r`rrrL . fr .ft e'z J~~e : '~rt.®~+w,+Rw~+al,',"°~'•~•a`~r"•~+°"'a'•'•°,',"•"~',•~r~• ".r.='i ~~,ff i • Ai~•4°A""~ ♦ i w°'B a I I a`°`Y . 8" `.°t e± e . . " . . . . " w rt fa".or's•e'r°i'i ' j 'tjia~•fl.)• • tufty a i~sr'r i•!`i .';'r`ID e + } • ,•e1r.~a a"k Is.`r°. . c x s r . v a F • e I't !'wA:"%tf LFf,}~ f bw! a•V"♦ ~~rel~~.`.M. ial . Ylerwrra'°eu'""l ~wCrrs.""v.i~_I lid i L". a I /~~tt~~f~ss"'"• _ a"e'.rt'.~ 'rI a' ~ Rr~.storµA~fl~+ «'er's~a.».• ~r r a ~ ,f • a` rat"•".. wb"".`.q.}1 1 r : saf..,. r i I I P ! r i. ~."(".~~.l.~l. + w aNS' farir • ' • •°,~y+'.'f ~ " 'r~i a'`'ir r' ~'rrtt°ih.~i e' ®rf wl fsli~®°~~•a..,d ` ~c I' Ii ww~ ®.q ov 'c w'f t~ a .a f rI° _ ~ it I o*r'~i~s~ . Ifsfj~ iI ,yr~°lrleallle~"~'e°. "'e I" kr ~ r w t -w"_lr+'.rel,Ia.; ;"1'e s... _ , _".t_3~~ krs ` - -r . ~ _ . c - _.n. s r ~ , i ~ ~ I ~ _ - - ~ is I ; r~ i:. _ 1 - _ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ I ~a.:-'; - , Y F ! ' r . ~ ~ - _ i. _ ~ t a 'L ~ _ 1 t - 7I t I' - ~ ~ - 3 : i 5 f ~ ~ ~ ry~~y L J ~i4 ~ J 'I F 4. C 41 S ~ 7f Ot * ~rr .s9{ .fit low, a}: t r f`s + mat 4F ~4 a0.-" 04 i$' `1{+f~ .~i- ?r r,7 Atii . " - ~ 4't$. r t y :4 ?T ~ tZ0 S ~ „t• 4 { ~ ;0. 1W C < J ~~I t ~ a 4 •i i ~`~,~y pC` ~ iAd~ Y { ?sue yF~ < .t ~ e3`~6*§~i'3'~r 'eF~`2• . s ~ g ~a; . rte" ~t iy 4t. ;^i C i ~ 1 3 •7 ? `'s ' b 4 r ,4 •X; yyt - S ~ v ? ~F ! 5 ..i 5 R g~ y' ff~~ „ e t s rot- ~ ° ~'S Rt Y i ~ ..y„ , ,r Y C 7 Y I A V R' 1385 Tl-i e Ada& • w• ALO H z _ w Alk low i s. o ry a e AIL M L n ~ W i , y ~ Ir yg~f v' M • r 4 ~ ut 06 1. 9 4 " . a x. I u Al j t Auh, 4 &WIT E4 ;~lY- }Rll r4 Ilk C~1 N n 'pl k q' d ilia; Y 5y •~~>yi~ y~, e~~ `~L.+ ~.y♦ # t -.P.f_ 3 f ~,T yiS..v. •d ~.Si.R~ -~j~ 1 ~ ^'9 - Erx e A .lRw q _ e A ~ i7'.Iro€ N. _ ~ lI j 40P for V a?l"s f y b K r lilt oil I r 44 tVK 40 tt ILI J / Y y / ~ -tea +F•s hYC ~ . ` ' a fi 1` NN s Ri'r'[RICT 2. SECTJOI~ _TW P. N. RANGE;-~~7„_ _ TA% Ler NO L~ LO • . t ~4 _ ---g~ E ❑fieCRIPTtON- THX l.ot 20 -6,... .3 3 6~ L I LIMITS . - - cc - - 3. ADDRESS OF'PROPERTY f{ollte 3 Kent .7aeh - PERMIT NO. '4'7F'- : j- CONTRACT PURCHASER---__, 4. F'EEOWNER ~Y .C ~Z-Tr of IO- 1 f 5. ARCHITECT-.--' - CONTRACTOR ' J PATE `18IIBnt . _ _ 6, ORIG. BUILDING COSTS OCCUPIED SY _ RENTAL PER MONTH II'-_~ESTjA1gTE0 RENTAL PCR MO NTHE~_.8 7 "'CONDIT{ON OF EXTERIOR I81r -INTERIORa~ .FOUNDATION--_ Ffi ll' FLOOR PLAN AO.Oept I StO ING %ILE WORK PORCH E9 9.. CORNER 'JOINTS--GA.P9 . __-GOWN SPOUTS SEWER CONNECTED None 1' Fln 0W1R _ Nbno 1 tine Story 10. FIRST FLOOR; JOIST SIZE 2 8 AND- 24 INCH CENTERS BRIDGED T... LO = 1 Hoofed 11. FIRST FLOOR JOIST SUPPORT COLUMN OR' POST S12E.-, g --_X_--El 4 ROOf06, f- T G f~y><7 12. CLASS OR GRADE NO A Medium ~~.,~®t i'1OOr / EXTR URES - SHAPE NO- 6-k/rc L 6z J1p..0 1,3. BUILDING FINIBNEO.OR UNFINISHED 014 1 inished 2x10' Overhang 14. DEPRECIATION: CONDITION OSS LS,E fi'ECON. SUIT--- TOTAL -I/~ 4 arrlc 93 ~ INTERIOR WALLS None BUILT-INS EJ M EFFECTIVE AGF $ .__YR S, FUTURE LIFE-7.r.-YRB, Z moiled 8h1ep T None' i' D INFORMATION Z Op cst -Studs _ r3a l' TM - 2. ROAD . Yes Gravel _ - _ CONSTRUCT70N I,,3 8 WGE O e I NA r WATER. YLe11~PUMPT- 4 Tpt g-, . 1ed.. Old s. UBE Res.. Farmill$~ . HEATING S:-in.:}® f~V.L . very _ _ LA ~7 801 I• 6 .TIMBER STAND NO,.ACRE9 VALU E•ACRE. VALUE F -ooRS Stove _ Very hasp. rtes. n r S S 4 uhipl8p /Rni3LC CEILING IfRIGlrr - I- _ 12 - I5-~ 1800 I , s 1st t1 oor 8~ - -r - _ _ - OIL X-L& G _ z FIRE PLACE S' None BASEMENT" VALUE S :~80 S 1VOIIe ASSESSED VALUE 'S ,1, - - INTERIOR TRIM I ;REMARKS . 4 Unfinished - ,j MAIN .BUILDING" DIMENSION BO. FT, AREA PLUMBING F UO~N~ q.4_ +•~e%.` ~ b 6 0 $88_~ . i ROOF PCH. 8 x EZ 176 ~ ~'-rf°`.-;----- - acre. `I x S: _ s ( Shy _ - -f ~,.Cer COIR,p QS~']i 1Q{t - " IMPROVEMENT VAIIli . 1 ~(-_/?7 „r y, EXTERIOR WALLS 'MAIN BUILDING S :0UIL0INGS , -••F-~ 2l~4~brc-0! Shiplep._ • . OTHER s _ { R. i?`~ TOTAL' ; / ~s ASSESSED VA UE'SW6 _'7`-'-~ f 3 1-t-4U ATE-" - - fret OTHER BUILOIN CfL h~ `jr G8 'CONBTR UGTION FLOOR RflOF` DIMENSION AREA VALUE y,^. 1 / a. .OAR- AGE _ X OR PLA L shed D=Ige U ;ha o s _ ~ - rL:., c _~Q I.-.C WNER R C RACT PURCHASER I GATE ILE NO. RICE MTGE.STAMP R S LT. W~NpR{CiS.S 2. (vd r 03192? l8000o Q<;o, r.,c: b! I. - ' I. s1.• S ~Oy' REMARKS-..- , b ,Sx { a'ls"1 8ax* n]dg. 20 yr _y ; ; I -QUBUflQAN-KING CGUNTY AQQQBtlOR-QQATTLe W~SNING'i'ON ~.~-.~in~Yti •.IM~KO o.. ~.r;YTU ~ PRON7 " 1 } ,~R ICT 2: SeC={OIs- RANGE 5 ,_TAX LOT NO AX LO G - OE'SCRIPTION Taa lot 20 - L- LIM co PHR MI 9. ADDRESS OF ROPERTY Ollte T NO. C O NTRACT PU RCHASER_ 4_ FEE OWNER ,~,-~-j'~[LjY_'V~ ^ 5. ARCHITECT DATE CONTRACTOR _T- • 6.. ORI@.BUILDING '1`0ria11t COSTS OCCUPIED. BY RENAL PER MONTH v S 'yEST MATED RENTAL PER MONTH S- J.rai - 7- CONDITION OF EXTERIOR -_INTERIOR ._~,-_FOSlCLMSUa..-~ y a pL'OOR;PLgNL kC cop ~r _ 1~RLklEn--"__,- I e.' BUILDING -TILE WORK P - IUT6 •IIEWEp.CONNECTED NOIIe' l 16 None. - / I -story (pU - TE INCH :CENTERS BRIDGED .NO L ' 4 Rooms- x B. 4 let t 1001' N' 1 41 . SHAPE. NO F nished AMC ECOiC SORT • ANTERIOR, WALLS IQOII9 'AGE B -YRS. 'FUTURE' LIFE l7 IA YRA, TJON _2 ueiled Shlap - - --T.+ Yes Gravel 2 Open 8tnde -dell - - _'PUMP- 'WATER - MEATIN/i - ' . use Res-__Farmi - - i'LOORS at ~e NO. ACRES' VALUE-ACRE 'VALUE - $s 25 a 200 i. 4 ahiplap 7' t&(AlaAc -'1 12 77 15 _2Q 180` F'1RE PLA.LE'~- NOne BASEMENT ` VALUE S_380 - tuorie' -.ASSESSED VALUE 5-- ..i INTERIOR TRIM REM ARKS ._--_--„_-_`_-_-__-T._ I 4 Unrinished BUILOINS PLUMBING - F V AT N DIMENSION 8O. FT, AREA ii cm - PC". 176 ROOF - I 4 Si)m-PpP.A>1 .,04PRCVEM£ NT VALUE EXTERIOR WALLS- 1f1 MAIN BUILDING ~1¢ s•`f-~F.wfi/ Ship OTHER BUILDINGS _lsp .p . lI_.r i 1 TOTAL Z AasesaeD1-iLE 5 -40 DATE 91 OTHER BUILDINGS:CO NSTR UC710N FLOOR Ra .F. DIMENSION gRQA VALUE. GARAGE f 7 x Shed . .``3bake ll ~ e 6 0 - X X D : . . --'C WNER R C RACT PURCHASER DATE ILE NO. RICE MTGE. STAMP I 3 -wee c S J. ANRRICKS 2.-6'8 f_ 031929 000 /{c so, rt., 61 1 REMAR KB ~ O f V , Rnl X FFIT.m li-1~?'gy 9.Q ;w nl .U., 1 "tt. - - , . . . . . . . . . . - - - I . I . . . . . . . `-..-------s-- "susuwswn-aIHO CO-UNTr wsessop-sewrrl.e, FRONT" ' r •wra .ulHnno ce.. erarn~. 9 - LAND: CLASSIFICATION ANDGREGATlON c, THIS SQUARE INDiCATES-. q - e ES ~ -.9 INDICATE BY AREAS USE OF LAND BY MARKS AND TYPE BY LETT CY SECTION ER9 I TWP ~'l N x.52 "`SFB l CO I~ , AERIAL. PHOTO QUARTER MAP 'PLAT MAP 09210590,7006 09-7I-05 S 112 OF S 112 OF SE 1/4 OF~02G M&"8 Folio 1t Co 23309 SW 1/4 LESS CO RDS LESS POR i PLATTED LEA HILL VILLAGE OiV A ,1 LANDUSE ACRES ' - ilT CULTIVATED less beg at nxn of c/lr:of SE 319th Pl with ° # PASTURE c/1 SE 319th P1 in Lea Hill Village Div #1 'OO TIMBER th alg C/L of SE 319th PI S 41-00-00 E 167. XX STUMP TAX, LOT 20 02 ft tap of curvature th N 49-00-00 r, 20 f' PARCEt.. NO. tap on NE bdry sd Lea' Hill Village Div #1 GRAVEL OR USIi'LB99 - ~ & tpob th N 41-00-00 W 17.60 ft tap th-$ v: 'SWAMP _ 86-58-13 E 285.24 £t th S 1-10-00 E 16.63 f ft th N 88-45-00 W 92 ft th S 3-01-47 W 75 ft tap of curvatur%&on NE bdry ad Village Div #1 th alg ad curve to =gt Hill LAND TYPE ACRES whose tangent bears N 86-53- A 9rtoTC~wr 58-13 Red 270 ft 13 W C/A 45- B I`eoc to tpob thof alg arc dist 216.63 ft ...C PEAT i - - D -SILT GRAVEL DAM F 0 BOTTOM 11! ~,,y I P : H ? UPLANDS _ S J~ f ` f. ~ p6 I Y C•':'Y'f :ek6~ ~F r' 5.- .i._.. K HILLY 'I f ~'I f i ~ II i? I . CIF USED AS SfiCT10N SCALE ONE INCH E00 FEET OR t140.ACRES OR 5280 PEET- . IF USED AS 1/4 SCALE ONE INCH 400 FEET OR ISO ACRES -OR 2640FEET... j \ IFUSED AS,yj Off. tfj.:." SCALE -ONE INCH 200 FEET OR 40 ACR149 OR 1320 FEET.. • - - IF USED AS yt > SCALE ONE INCH 700 FEET OR : 10 ACRES OR-. S00 PELR y.. 6L L - s,-;i sL . - er et O '7 ei!r ` i -rr. rF" o<_--! rr o7,hY_=i ona`'fr s~. --6/9 0"-0Z06-50 TZ60 xObE9E Al i.. - t OOT Z 8 0,#.ZbE TGeL' -t~. ro on ~o o el' y s "9 r u/ oSer<j -I t o , 1 8 -s -71 o = G, 15 o 61 f I aeYl YSUI I yo Y~uo Y1- 44l~ - Y10.1 .'5.0018 ONV-1 1',V UY3A. aa 99 OZO-+SO l Z60; xB i 31°D 259VA 5359assY do aaooaa ? `JNIDtIn F) ONY7 _I ' NOI.LVf1-17A -01:5105358_ . _ aal~ natYry~l ~DOH7s avott :i71L3151a Arid IdU1V I.IdSFf Ali, N1?S r, - KING COUNTY 099 SHEET OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY RECORD LAno , hWOR. MINOR Q 2 FOLIO 3 S' Q Q 100 Zen. Actual / 3 Addition 0 .Zon. Conlermlt N ; - Hot. 6 Be., Uee 1N a:^!< 2Y FF .4Ou.r~ Sec® Twnm R9e Blaek® Lot lOd Lee Width 105 Lot De th Slfue S Aree,T Sub A...r 6 Zlp 98 ® 106 So.... Foot ar Acr.. TAddress 107 Let Width or Acres uaeo61. % J -11, 106. Lot Death (useobl.I % 8'Description 110 Lot Wd. (stand.rdj p III Lot Depth standard i~ 113 Unit Value - lid R. r .nt.11- Sit. S ' 3G . 9 LAND ONLY UNDERWATER TIDELANDS Irre ul r 1N - 10 REMARKS 146 C*;n., IN Code 117 Grade W ix IL Im-P +D-#tvt4 &-7t,9' ni _ "fs 1-07- /vto tA) 0 Ile Slope V S'71 $1b tL OA/ k10VIMF. Fr¢A~8 119 Street Access 1S1034 8 120 Water Front N D 3 LK d V 4414 -1, Suitabilit 1N 2P 3r - 122 Tide L.nd 2y.- _ 123 Alle 2Y 124 Cul De Sac - 2y 125 Thra Street IN 1 126 Street Front 1 N - 127 Curbs & Ourt.s - 2P 3Y 31 P 128 Sid-1k. 2 3Y 129 Street S-1- 1 C BT 3 0 4 GR 130 Street Condi rfon I SS a 3G ' "3F 131 Sneer Traffic 1 H 3L _ 132 Street Lights 2SS 35 4G 133 Ware, WD 2 PR 3 B 134 We to, Sys tam AD .2 IA 13 S.nitary Sewers 1 - 2Y 136 Storm Sewers Y 10A PERMIT INFORMATION 137 Under ,ound.Utllities 1N 3Y No. Data I.... d P.V: Data Condr: Stabled:- Data Completed VIEW , Data OccuPl.d 140 Y l- Lot - IN Remodeled: - V'ew Ol m R ISS; °i 5 - G E - ViawCscad. Ran o ISS "5. . 25 - 4 11 PLAT OF BUILDING Scale 1 CM = 43 View Mt. Roinler '125 35 4E _ vlow pug. Sound ISS' 2S 3G 11 4E VI'ew L.k. ISS ' S = G E ;k - . . , View -or 155: 25 G E :~e't. View Lit 15S 25 3G . 148Tenitori ai View 7 25 3G.. dE t-'F, _ . _ _ . :i V[- Utilisation 55 2S 3G i?. 4E a NEIGHBORHOOD AND TOTAL PROPERTY - _ 151 Ptedominote. Use 2" 30 'z - u-xs - _ .J., Arch.. Attroctivencss 1S5 ( 2S 3G SS g G ` Jfi* Unit Bal atico ISS 25 G 155 E.mts. 8, R.tfrs:. ISS G 156 E.ternol Nulsonaes ISS 3G _ - _ _ Dole Gen. Nei h. ISS 2S 30 _ _ Conf. Immed. Neigh. I SS 2S 3G 159P roe. to Trans. ISS 3G` 60 Prox, to Soc. S.-Ice i5S 3G 161 Pro.. ro Public S.ro.e ISS 3G .e 162 Trend ISS G , 163 Pl...in 155 3G 164 Market Demand Ss : 3G P. - Land U.. Code 166 Base Let Value $ - 167 Permane t Re.. Needed (Refers to land vol..) . _ STAFF _ 70 Land Data Date - 171 A raiser No. / 3 . eoi.wer No. . Dote Sots ASSESSORS FORM ass R@Y, 1-1 .7Z , 1~ OF 1 111 2 FOLIOV'?~~3 C/ U MAJO)421 1 M1 .r" MiNORR 6 13 BUILT-INS 17 EXTERIOR Ran e $ Vinyl Shingle Oven $ Stucco Metal KING COUNTY DblDven WcodAde Cora . elk. RESIDENTIAL PERMANENT RECORD CARD OroplnRange~ Plywood Dishwasher Brick Veneer % Disposal Stone % Sltus Fen/Hood $ Other 7 Address Inter-Com I8 ROOF 10 REMARKS Hip Comp Code Gable Tile/Slate O 4 S~C> G b -f N 01 LJ y 2'r` w ax-lcmd IO RN 9 Shed Tar/Gravel vl Flat Shi ROOM DETAIL Shake HLQt.r]Hv yNo. 8 1 11P 2 Other Dining Fa/De/R 19 FOUNDATION Bedroom Concete Bath Cc ncrete Block Living Post 9 Pier Kitchen 0lher 5 FIREPLACE ADD COST 2OPLUMBING I I - PERMIT INFORMATION Heatolator $ Baths Full 3/4 1/¢ No. Date Issued RV. Other Sgi. Out lots Date Cons t. Started Date Completed Date Occupied Date Appraised Remodeled Appraiser Total Land Data Doe / 16 SOURCE OF DATA Owner OMIT NO ❑ YES ❑ YEAR (7/3[) Tenant COMP Other 21 INSULATION YEAR %COMP YEAR %COMP NH Walls Ceiling 12 MISCELLANEOUS IMPROVEMENTS Wirdaws Unknown Year Items Const. Gr Floor Roof Dimensions Area n.VWdue F. V. 22 PRINCIPAL BUILDING FI Dimensions Area FI Dimensions Area x x x x "e x x x x x x x x x x fs x x x x -~T--1-l I,J~Jr.~}..l x X , j1. t- { I J.I ! r i sl `11 i t! r i' i, f i 1 1 i X x. i{i1{ ' ~3 1 I' .IJi.{ r+ji 23 VALUE ADJUSTMENTS } 1 1 ~ ~ , 1 i s~~ i i 1 ♦ 1 I I i Code Explanation Cost 1 I J 'I I i i t . 1 1 1} 1 I~~ 1 i t j a 4` i I { { } TI ~Y1 } J ! ..t I , ; 1-t t.L4i I L~~.~J~~~.....I 1-]J!, I : ~.a 1 I 1 r t I,7J.11 ~1'i 1 ' I 1~ II 77 i I, J T 1 t~7~ 1, y j. it J 1'111 :ill it , j 1 xl ~jF~ rI i { + a1?11~~' }}`f{ L f l I. II,. It~1~1I 11.1 ."JI,{I" ji ijj ii 1 F 1 a+ *~tr 1 1-4 i id k .41.11. J- J y J y , r-r 1 i _ ~1 , -11 ;-q j .r. li l{+! T 111111.~~~~~~{{{{{{ JTI I lj#li l f I sf i I J- tf. l' rr~l~ a t :1 S~ td- 4 q-! ASSESSORS FORM NO. API Rev. 6.1-83 Scale ICM= r r` g ~ w z N APPENDIX E f w w , 11/1,/A Report and Guidelines for Use y- w p j W s x f ~ ~ f i , ~ w T' APPENDIX E REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report. Read These Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals and contractors may not recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering, geology and environmental science) are far less exact than other engineering and natural science disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that could lead to disappointments, claims and disputes. GeoEngineers includes these explanatory "limitations" provisions in our reports to help,reduce such risks. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you are unclear how these "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" apply to your project or site. Environmental Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons and Projects GeoEngineers has performed this ESA of the property consisting of Lea Hill Park property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of SE 320th Street and 124th Avenue SE in Auburn, Washington; in<.; general_ accordance r,with the,-. s_ cope . and limitations of our proposal dated February 19, 2010, ASTM E 1527-05, Standard Practice for Phase I ESAs, and EPA's Federal Standard 40 CFR Part 312 "Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI)." This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Washington State Department of General Administration (Washington GA) and the Green River Community College (GRCC). This report is not intended for use by others, and the information contained herein is not applicable to other properties. GeoEngineers structures our services to meet the specific needs of our clients. For example, an environmental site assessment study conducted for a property owner may not fulfill the needs of a prospective purchaser of the same property. Because each environmental study is unique, each environmental report is unique` prepared solely for the specific client and. project property. This report should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. This Environmental Report Is Based on Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors This report has been prepared for the Lea Hill Park property located at the'northwest corner of the intersection of SE 320th Street and 124th Avenue SE in Auburn, Washington. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on this report if it was: not prepared for you, not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific properly explored, or completed before important project changes were made. GEOENGINEERS May 19' 2010 ` Pagie E-1 File No. 1406-009-01 If important changes are made to the project or subject property after the date of this report, GeoEngineers should be retained to review our interpretations and recommendations and to provide written modifications or confirmation, as appropriate. Reliance Conditions for Third Parties Our report was prepared for the exclusive use of our Client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. This is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against open-ended liability claims by third parties with whom there would otherwise be no contractual limits to their actions. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with the Client and generally accepted environmental practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. Historical Information Provided by Others GeoEngineers makes no warranties or guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of information provided or compiled by others. The information presented in this report is based on the above-described research and a single recent site visit. GeoEngineers has relied upon information provided by others in our description of historical conditions and in our review of regulatory databases and files. The available data do not provide definitive information with regard to all past uses, operations or incidents at the subject property or adjacent properties. Uncertainty Remains Even After This ESA Study Is Completed No ESA can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with a property. Performance of an ESA study is intended to reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainty regarding the potential for RECs in connection with a property. There is always a potential that areas with contamination that were not identified during this Phase I ESA exist at the subject property or in the study area. Further evaluation of such potential would require additional research, subsurface exploration, sampling and/or testing. Environmental Regulations Are Always Evolving Some substances may be present in the vicinity of the subject property in quantities or under conditions that may have led, or may lead, to contamination of the subject property, but are not included in current local, state or federal regulatory definitions of hazardous substances or do not otherwise present current potential liability. GeoEngineers cannot be responsible if the standards for appropriate inquiry, or regulatory definitions of hazardous substance, change or if more stringent environmental standards are developed in the future. Property Conditions Can Change This environmental report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time (for example, a Phase I ESA report is typically applicable for 180 days), by events such as a change in property use or occupancy, or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations. If more than six months have passed since issuance of our report or work product, or r~ if any of the described events may have occurred, please contact GeoEngineers before applying Page E- 2 May 13, 2010 GeoEngineers, inc. Fite Nu. 1406-009-01 this report so that we may evaluate whether changed conditions affect the continued reliability or ..rte applicability of our conclusions and recommendations. Geotechnical, Geologic and Environmental Reports Should Not B Interchanged The equipment, techniques and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study and vice versa. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic concerns regarding a specific project. Biological Pollutants GeoEngineers' Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention or assessment of the presence of Biological Pollutants. Accordingly, this report does not include any interpretations, recommendations, findings, or conclusions regarding the detecting, assessing, preventing or abating of Biological Pollutants and no conclusions or inferences should be drawn regarding Biological Pollutants, as they may relate to this project. The term "Biological Pollutants" includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts. If Client desires these specialized services, they should be obtained from a consultant who offers services in this specialized field. GEOENGINEERS flay 19` 2010 Pa°e E-3 File No. 1406-009-01 Have we delivered World Class Client Service? Please let us know by visiting www. geoengineers.com/feedback. GMENGINEERS~ www.geoengineers.com •~~1~ #li~• GWENGINEERS E N V I R 0 N NUMber Iff PA , August 13, 2010 MEMORANDUM To: S.M. Stemper Architects ENVIRON Project No: 29-24697A CC: Richard Weinman From: Kurt Richman Project Name: Green River Community College Richard Steffel Trades Complex Relocation and Expansion Subject: Air Quality Issues Review for SEPA Documentation ENVIRON has reviewed the materials and information pertinent to the proposed relocation and expansion of the Green River Community College Trades program with regard to potential air quality issues that might arise from the project. In addition, Kurt Richman visited the existing Trades facility to observe and discuss current and expected/proposed future activities. ENVIRON performed a screening analysis using Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT) WASIST modeling tool to assess potential CO impacts. Based on this review, we see nothing that suggests the project would be likely to result in any significant air quality problems or issues. The remainder of this memo provides details of the review that formed the basis for this conclusion. Affected Environment Air quality is generally assessed in terms of whether concentrations of air pollutants are higher or lower than ambient air quality standards established to protect human health and welfare. Three agencies have jurisdiction over ambient air quality in the project area: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA). These agencies establish regulations that govern both the concentrations of pollutants in the outdoor air and contaminant emissions from air pollution sources. Although their regulations are similar in stringency, each agency has established its own standards. Unless the state or local jurisdiction has adopted more stringent standards, the EPA standards pertain. Green River Community College is located in East Auburn, west of State Route 18. The project area is dominated by the College campus, residential properties and small commercial facilities. Typical air pollution sources in the project vicinity include vehicular traffic on the numerous roads in the area, retail/commercial facilities, and residential wood-burning devices. The proposed project would include the construction and expansion of the Trades facility, including the addition of parking and reconfiguration of some on-site roadways. While the project would relocate several pollution-generating activities and possibly increase their emissions, vehicular transportation would continue to comprise the major emissions source in the project vicinity. As a cumulative emissions source, vehicles emit, among other things, relatively large quantities of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx) which 19020 33rd Ave W, Suite 310. Lynnwood, WA 98036 T: (425) 412-1800 F: (425) 412-1840 www.environcorp.com c i E N V I R 4 N Green River Community College Trades Replacement Project AQ Review August 13, 2010 Page 2 of 8 contribute to the formation of ozone, and small amounts of sulfur dioxide. Vehicles also emit fine particulate matter directly in their exhaust and indirectly as a function of their tires moving on paved or unpaved surfaces. Existing Air Quality To track air quality conditions, Ecology and PSCAA maintain a network of monitoring stations throughout the Puget Sound region. These stations are typically located where air quality problems may occur, and so are usually in or near urban areas or close to specific large air pollution sources. Other stations in more remote areas indicate regional air pollution levels. Based on monitoring information collected over a period of years, the state (Ecology) and federal (EPA) agencies designate regions as being "attainment" or "nonattainment" areas for particular air pollutants. Attainment status is therefore a measure of whether air quality in an area complies with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Regions that were once designated nonattainment that have since attained the standard are considered "maintenance" areas. The project area is considered attainment for all monitored air pollutants except CO and ozone, for which much of the region is considered a maintenance area for both the CO and ozone NAAQSs (based on historical issues with these standards). This suggests air quality is generally good in the vicinity of Green River Community College. Several air pollutants are discussed in greater detail below. Particulate Matter - PM1o and PM2.5 00%, Particulate matter air pollution is generated primarily by industrial activities and operations, fuel combustion sources like residential wood burning, motor vehicle engines and tires, as well as other, more minor sources. Federal, state, and local regulations set limits for particle concentrations in the air based on the size of the particles and the related potential threat to health. When first regulated, particle pollution was based on "total suspended particulate," which included all size fractions. As sampling technology improved and the importance of particle size and chemical composition became more apparent, ambient standards were revised to focus on the size fractions thought to be most dangerous to human health. At present, there are standards for inhalable coarse particles less than about 10 micrometers (microns) in diameter (PM 10) and inhalable fine particles less than about 2.5 microns in diameter PM2.5. The latter (and even smaller "ultrafine" particles) are now thought to represent the most dangerous size fractions of airborne particulate matter because such small particles (e.g., a typical human hair is about 100 microns in diameter) can be breathed deeply into the lungs. In addition, such particles are often associated with toxic substances, deleterious in their own right, which can adsorb to particulate matter then be carried into the respiratory system. Based on the most recent studies, in 2006 the EPA set new, more stringent standards for PM2.5. There are currently no PM 10 or PM2.5 monitoring stations in or near Auburn. The closest monitors are located in the cities of Tacoma and Kent. Auburn is not included in an existing PM 10 or PM2.5 nonattainment or maintenance area. While most measured concentrations of both PM 10 and PM2.5 at monitoring stations in the Puget Sound area have complied with the applicable ambient air quality standards since 1997, recent USEPA, 2006, 40 CFR 50: National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, EPA-HQ-OAR-2001- 0017; FRL-RIN 2060-A144, September 21, 2006 f E N V I RON Green River Community College Trades Replacement Project AQ Review August 13, 2010 Page 3 of 8 measurements in the Wapato Hills-Puyallup River Valley area have persistently exceeded the standard. On December 14, 2009, EPA designated this area as nonattainment at Ecology's recommendation. By December 14, 2012, Ecology must submit a plan to reduce PM2.5 and bring the area back into attainment by 2014. (2) Given that most monitoring stations in Puget Sound have complied with the standard since 1997 and the lack of major sources of particulate matter in Auburn, it is likely that throughout most of the year, existing fine particulate concentrations are less than the limits set by the standards. During prolonged periods of stagnant meteorological conditions, however, it is possible that emissions from vehicles, residential solid-fuel space heating, and other sources in the study area could elevate particulate matter concentrations so that concentrations reach or exceed the health based standards. But operation of the proposed new Trades facility would be a relatively minor source of particulate matter, so it is not necessary to analyze these emissions to conclude that the project would be unlikely to result in impacts due to particulate matter. Carbon Monoxide (CO) CO is a by-product of incomplete combustion. It is generated by vehicular traffic and other fuel-burning activities, such as residential space heating, especially if the space heating units use solid fuels such as coal or wood. There are two short-term air quality standards for CO: a 1-hpur average standard of 35 ppm and an 8- hour average standard of 9 ppm. Short-term standards are often the controlling, or most restrictive, air pollution standards. The impacts of CO are usually localized near the source(s), with the highest ambient concentrations usually occurring near congested roadways and intersections during periods of cold temperatures (autumn and winter months), light winds, and stable atmospheric conditions. Such weather conditions reduce the atmospheric mechanisms that disperse and dilute pollutants. The project area is within the Puget Sound region CO nonattainment area established in 1991 that encompasses a large portion of the Everett-Seattle-Tacoma urban area. EPA redesignated the Central Puget Sound region as attainment for CO in 1997, and the region remains a CO air quality maintenance area. There have been no measured violations of the standards in many years, and measured CO levels at all monitoring locations have shown a decreasing trend in CO concentrations since the early 1990's. (3) These trends are the result of federal, state, and local plans and vehicle emission control requirements designed to reduce vehicle emissions by implementing use of lower pollutant-emitting vehicles and cleaner fuels. Ozone Ozone is a highly reactive form of oxygen created by sunlight-activated chemical transformations of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (hydrocarbons) in the atmosphere. Ozone problems tend to be regional in nature because the atmospheric chemical reactions that produce ozone occur over a period of time, and because during the delay between emission and ozone formation, ozone precursors can be transported far (2) http•//www ecy wa Gov/pro„Tanis/air•'NonattainnientfNonattainment.htm (3> USEPA, 2010, AirData: Access to Air Pollution Data, littp://wwtiv.epa.aov/aii-/data/index.html s E N V I R 0 N Green River Community College Trades Replacement Project AQ Review August 13, 2010 Page 4 of 8 from their sources. Transportation sources like automobiles and trucks are among the sources that produce ozone precursors. In the past, due to violations of the federal ozone standards, the Puget Sound region was designated as nonattainment for ozone. In 1997, EPA determined that the Puget Sound ozone nonattainment area had attained the health-based ozone standard in effect at that time. The EPA reclassified the Puget Sound region as attainment for ozone and approved the associated air quality maintenance plan. Auburn is, therefore, in an ozone air quality maintenance area. In March 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour ozone standard to set a new, more stringent limit. Measured ozone concentrations at several regional stations have exceeded the new 8-hour ozone standard and it is likely that the Central Puget Sound area will again become nonattainment for this pollutant once EPA finalizes the new standard in the summer of 2010. (4) Under the current air quality plans and policies, this status has no direct implications for the Trades project. Air Pollutant Emissions Sources and Potential for Impacts The primary sources of the emissions related to operation of the Trades program would be from traffic traveling to and from the complex. Additional sources include emissions from the auto body, automotive, carpentry, manufacturing, and welding classrooms (described more completely in a later section). There would also be temporary emissions from construction equipment and activities during development of the project. These emissions sources are discussed further below. Operational Emissions: Vehicles Traffic to and from the facility would generate an assortment of air pollutants as either gases or fine particles from exhaust and fine particulate matter from tire action on roadways. The primary air pollutant of concern with vehicular sources is usually CO, and under current air quality rules, CO is typically the focus of environmental impact assessments for projects involving traffic sources. EPA guidance and rules regarding assessments of air quality impacts from vehicle sources suggest the need to consider performing quantitative "hot-spot" analyses in situations where the level of service (LOS) of signalized intersections is "D" or worse due to a project. (5) EPA guidance says that when LOS is "C" or better, air quality impacts would not be expected and additional analysis is not usually required. Unsignalized intersections, such as the Trades complex driveway, that are expected to operate with very little delay and would not require a traffic signal, also would not be expected to cause air quality problems. The LOS summary provided in Table 1 indicates "hot-spot" modeling should be performed on both signalized intersections examined in the traffic analysis to examine the potential for air quality impacts. (4) http:://www.ecy.wa.gov/ programs/air/Nonattainment/Nonatlaimmnt htm (s) EPA 1992, Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersections, Office of Air quality Standards and Planning, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1992 E N V I R 0 N Green River Community College Trades Replacement Project AQ Review August 13, 2010 Page 5 of 8 Table 1. Intersection Level of Service for Peak AM Traffic 2009 2015 Existin No Action Build Signalized Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay 124th Ave SE / SE 312th St E 60 D 54 E 57 124th Ave SE / SE 320th St C 34 D 48 D 40 Source: Transportation Engineering Northwest (2010) 71 To assess the potential for traffic-related air quality impacts, ENVIRON evaluated the worst-case traffic period at both intersections using the WSDOT screening tool, WASIST.(6) This tool applies worst-case meteorological and traffic assumptions to estimate CO concentrations at nearby receptor locations. Modeling results, presented in Table 2, were compared to the 1-hour, 35-ppm, and 8-hour, 9-ppm, ambient air quality standards for CO. Based on this review, project-related traffic would be unlikely to result in any significant impacts to air quality. Table 2. Estimated CO Concentrations at Project -Affected Intersections (ppm) r•.., Signalized 2009 2015 Intersection Period Existing No Build Build 124th Ave SE / 1-Hour 5.4 4.7 4.7 SE 312th St 8-Hour a 4.7 4.2 4.2 124th Ave SE / 1-Hour 4.6 4.3 4.2 SE 320th St 8-Hour a 4.1 3.9 3.8 8-h6ur concentration as reported from the WASIST model using 1-hour concentration less background and multiplying by a 0.7 persistence factor to account for probable changes in traffic and meteorological conditions over an 8-hour period, then adding background of 3 ppm. All CO concentrations include a background of 3.00 ppm The 1-hour and 8-hour ambient air quality standards are 35 ppm and 9 ppm respectively. Source: ENVIRON International Corporation 2010 Operational Emissions: Trades Complex The Green River Community College Trades complex houses five programs: the Auto Body, Automotive, Carpentry, Manufacturing, and Welding programs. Existing and proposed future daily activities at the Trades complex include machining, automotive refinishing and restoration, woodworking, sanding, welding, and spray painting inside an enclosure (a paint booth). Of the various emissions from these activities, particulate matter is the pollutant emitted in the largest quantity. The existing Trades complex uses dust and aerosol (6) Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2009. Washington State Intersection Screening Tool, WASIST User's Manual Version 2. June 2009. ENV1 RON Green River Community College Trades Replacement Project AQ Review August 13, 2010 Page 6 of 8 collection baghouses to control particulate matter from the paint spray booth and machining/woodworking equipment. The proposed project would relocate and expand the existing Trades complex. With this move, some sources, including the paint booth and machining/woodworking equipment, would be located closer to off-site residential receivers. As part of permitting for the proposed project, some of the Trades facility sources would be subject to a Notice of Construction application review under PSCAA rules. (7) These regulations are intended to protect sensitive individuals from unhealthy pollutant concentrations in ambient air. Any regulated sources would be subject to rules limiting pollutant emissions to minimize potentially unhealthy air quality concentrations to the nearest neighboring land uses. In this instance, the sources subject to a PSCAA review include the paint booth and machining/woodworking equipment with dust controlled by a fabric filter with airflow greater than or equal to 2,000 cubic feet per minute. PSCAA would require compliance with its regulatory requirements under this review process, therefore impacts from these permitted sources would be unlikely. Odor from such sources as glues, solvents, and paint would be subject to PSCAA rules prohibiting effects that annoy neighbors. No odors were detected outside the buildings during field observations and no recent odor complaints for the Trade Complex have been received by PSCAA. However, the proposed project would move the complex closer to residences. Prudent building and site design, including maximizing the distances between exhaust ports and storage/use of glues, solvents, and paints from neighbors, would minimize the potential for odor impacts from these sources. While no air quality regulations specifically control emissions from welding, both electric arc and gas-fuel welding produce dangerous gases and particulates such as phosgene and hexavalent chromium. To ensure the health of their students and teachers (i.e., the people closest to these processes), the existing welding classroom is equipped with collection hoods on flexible arms that capture welding fumes at the source and port them to a filter system. A similar emissions control system will be used in the proposed Trades complex to ensure the health and safety of students, and by extension, the health of any nearby neighbors. Construction-Related Air Quality Impacts During construction of any of the alternative alignments of the project, dust from excavation, grading, and construction would contribute to ambient concentrations of suspended particulate matter. The construction contractor(s) would have to comply with the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency's (PSCAA) Regulation 1, Section 9.15, requiring reasonable precautions to avoid dust emissions. Construction would require the use of heavy trucks, excavators, graders and a range of smaller equipment such as generators, pumps, and compressors. Emissions from existing traffic around the project area would outweigh any slight degradation of local air quality resulting from construction equipment emissions. Nonetheless, emissions from such sources, and especially from diesel-fueled engines, are coming under increasing scrutiny because of their suspected risk to human health. Specific dose/response effects are (7) Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, 2010, Conversations with Dic Gribben, April 2010 E N V I R 0 N Green River Community College Trades Replacement Project AQ Review August 13, 2010 r` Page 7 of 8 unknown, but long-term exposure to excessive amounts of diesel emissions could represent a health risk, especially to sensitive individuals like the chronically ill, the old and the very young. Hence, although there is little or no danger of such emissions resulting in pollutant concentrations that would exceed an applicable ambient air quality standard, pollution control agencies are now urging that emissions from diesel equipment be minimized to the extent practicable in order to reduce potential health risks. By minimizing on-site diesel engine idling and locating combustion-fueled equipment as far as possible from nearby residences, diesel emissions would not likely substantially affect air quality in the project vicinity. Although some construction phases would cause odors, particularly during paving operations using tar and asphalt, any odors related to construction would be short-term and unlikely to significantly affect the nearest residences. The construction contractor(s) would have to comply with the PSCAA regulations requiring measures to control the emissions of odor-bearing air contaminants so as to prevent any adverse effects on nearby people or properties (Regulation I, Section 9.11). Construction equipment, material hauling, and construction detours could affect traffic flows near active construction areas. If construction delays traffic enough to significantly reduce travel speeds in the area, general traffic-related emissions would increase. As part of a separate future demolition proposal, existing buildings that may contain asbestos would be demolished. Demolition contractors would be required to comply with EPA and PSCAA regulations concerning the safe removal and disposal of any asbestos-containing materials. In addition to the PSCAA requirements for asbestos, Washington State Labor and Industries and the local fire marshal may also require notification of asbestos removal. Mitigation Measures Construction Impact Mitigation Emissions from construction equipment and trucks could be reduced by using well maintained equipment. Avoiding prolonged periods of vehicle idling and engine powered equipment also would reduce emissions. Trucking materials to and from active construction areas that would be likely to disrupt traffic could be scheduled to minimize congestion during peak travel times. This would minimize secondary air quality impacts that would otherwise be caused by traffic having to travel at reduced speeds. Dust produced during construction could be reduced by several techniques. Areas of exposed soils such as staging areas and construction roadways could be paved or sprayed with water or other dust suppressants. Roads and other areas that might be exposed for prolonged periods could be paved, planted with a vegetation ground cover, or covered with gravel. The amount of soils carried out of active constructions area by trucks could be reduced by wheel washing and covering dusty truck loads. Soil that does escape the construction area on exiting vehicles could be reduced with an effective street cleaning effort. Operational Impact Mitigation No significant air quality impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are warranted or proposed. ` S ENV1 RON Green River Community College Trades Replacement Project AQ Review August 13, 2010 Page 8 of 8 Conclusions Based on the screening-level quantitative "hot-spot" air quality analysis for 124th Ave SE with SE 312th St and 124th Ave SE with SE 320th St, CO concentrations near these intersections would remain well below the 1-hour and 8-hour ambient air quality standards with or without the proposed project. Construction and operation of the proposed Trades Complex expansion project would be unlikely to result in any significant air quality impacts due to the requirement that any major emission sources (e.g., paint booths and baghouses over certain sizes) would be subject to review and permitting by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. Furthermore, any odorous emissions from the facility would be subject to PSCAA and City of Auburn rules prohibiting nuisance impacts to neighbors. ter ale if Pages CRITICAL AREA REPORT Green River Community College Trades and Industry Facility Rezone/Administrative Use Permit Auburn, Washington King County Parcel No. 0921059020 August 6, 2010 Keith F. Fabing, SWS Certified Professional Wetland Scientist c~`~3 At'.o v ~C KEITH F. FABINQ, M.S. 000256 !v G` ~p'bAC wET~S Prepared for: S.M. Stemper Architects 4000 Delridge Way S.W., Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98106 Attn: Sara J. Wilder, AIA KEITH FABING, INC. BIOLOGIST/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST 4816 S. Alaska Street Seattle, Washington 98118-1851 (206) 721-5853 FAX (206) 721-3428 keithfabing@gmail.com TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND 1 Proposed Project 1 Study Area Location 1 Previously Completed Wetland Studies .........................................................................2 Topography 2 Soils 2 Hydrology 3 Wetland Inventories 4 Priority Habitat and Species Data 5 Natural Heritage Program Data 5 METHODS 5 September 23, 2008 Field Investigation 5 April 30, 2010 Field Investigation,.-..., 6 RESULTS 7 Wetland A 7 Wetland B 8 FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................9 Semi-Quantitative Assessment Methodology 9 Washington State Wetland Rating System 10 REGULATORY 10 Federal and State 11 City of Auburn 11 Wetland Ratings 12 WETLAND ADVERSE IMPACT AVOIDANCE 12 DISCLAIMER 14 REFERENCES 15 Literature Cited Personal Communications 17 The following are found immediately after the reference section: FIGURES Figure 1: Duwamish/Green River Watershed Figure 2 Soos Creek Subbasin Figure 3: Subbasin Boundary Figure 4: Parcel Map Figure 5: Study Area Map Figure 6: Wetland A Boundaries and Topography Figure 7: Wetland B Boundaries and Topography Figure 8: Soil Survey Figure 9: Childcare Center Drainage Plan Figure 10: King County Critical Areas Figure 11: National Wetland Inventory Figure 12: Revised Wetland B Boundary and Topography Continued Next Page yam` I CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 PHOTOS APPENDICIES Appendix A: Priority Habitat and Species Data Appendix B: Natural Heritage Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plant Data Appendix C: Wetland Determination Methodology and Regulations Appendix D: Wetland Determination Data Forms Appendix E: Plant Species List Appendix F: Wetland Functional Assessment Descriptions Appendix G: Wetland Functional Assessment Data Forms Appendix H: Wetland Rating I I CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/A UP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 BACKGROUND Proposed Project The proposal is for a rezone and administrative use permit for_an 8.97-acre parcel to allow construction of a new Trades and Industry, facility (hereinafter referred to as "Trades'-')_ for. Green River Community . College (hereinafter referred to as,"GRCC"). This Critical Area Report-has been prepared in support of rezone and administrative use permit applications. A Critical Area Report is defined by in the Auburn City Code as a report prepared by a.qualified- consultant to determine the presence, type, class, size,-function arid/or value of a critical area subject to Title 16 -Environment (City of Auburn, 2010). The GRCC Trades program consists of instruction in carpentry and manufacturing, automotive and auto body repair, and welding. The existing Trades complex on the GRCC campus is housed in five separate buildings, all of which are in a deteriorated condition and in need of replacement or rehabilitation. The footprint of the proposed Trades facility is estimated to be approximately 65,000 square feet (excluding parking) and the building would be one-story in height. Parking would be provided for approximately 150 vehicles. Approximately 46 percent of the total site area would be undeveloped and retained in existing and new vegetation. The new facility would contain space for approximately twelve faculty and 291 FTE students. Programs would operate on week days (day time and evenings until 10 PM). Construction would begin in 2013. GRCC and the City of Auburn executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on February 5, 2010 that provides a framework for acquisition of the Lea Hill Park parcel by GRCC, transfer of an adjacent parcel of land owned by GRCC to the City of Auburn (Martin property), and relocation and reconstruction of a new city park (Lea Hill Community Park) on this adjacent property. The Auburn Department of Parks, Arts and Recreation recently began public outreach and conceptual planning for the new park. The proposed Trades project is being designed to avoid impacts to wetlands and their associated buffer setback areas. A landscape plan is being prepared as part of the rezone and administrative use permit application. It is anticipated that significant landscaping and potentially a landscape berm will be proposed to help screen and buffer the Trades facility from adjacent residential and park land uses. Construction specifications and/or noise walls will be employed to mitigate noise impacts to adjacent properties. Study Area Location The proposed Trades site (hereinafter referred to as the "study area") is located in southwest King County, Washington in the northeast portion of the City of Auburn at the intersection of S. 3201h Street and 124`h Avenue (northwest corner) (portion of the SW '/4 of Section 9, Township 21N, Range 5E, Willamette Meridian) (see Figure 4). The study area is comprised of the entire King County Parcel No. 0921059020 (also referred to above as the Lea Hill Park parcel) and is currently owned by the City of Auburn (see Figure 5). Current access to the study area is from 122°d Avenue and from 124`h Avenue. The study area is positioned immediately north of the GRCC main campus (located south of 3201h Street) and immediately south of the 3.71-acre GRCC Child Care Center parcel (Parcel No. 0921059229) currently owned by GRCC and located at 31715 - 124`h Avenue S.E. (see Figure 5). The existing Lea Hill Park consists of baseball and soccer fields, tennis courts, a children's playground and a Class III forested wetland. All rights-of-entry to the study area for the purpose of 1 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith,Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 conducting this study were obtained by Sara J. Wilder of S.M. Stemper Architects for GRCC and the City of Auburn. The entire study area is positioned inside of the urban growth boundary. Previously Completed Wetland Studies A Class III wetland exists in the southeastern corner of the study area (Wetland B), and a very small portion of an off-site Class III wetland (Wetland A) extends into the northwestern corner of the study area. Keith Fabing, Inc. delineated these two wetlands and described them in a previously completed report titled Critical Area Study, Green River Community College & Lea Hill Park, Auburn, Washington, King County Parcel Nos. 0921059229, 0921059020, and 1621059006 (Keith Fabing, Inc., 2008). Keith Fabing, Inc. prepared this report under contract to S.M. Stemper Architects dated October 23, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "October 2008 Critical Area Study"). Independent of the Trades proposal, GRCC has submitted an application to construct road, pedestrian and landscaping improvements to 124"' Avenue between S. 310h Street and S. 320`" Street. This project is titled HS Complex Replacement: 124"' Avenue Improvements Project. Some utilities will also be relocated or reconstructed in conjunction with this proposal. Keith Fabing, Inc. prepared a letter report in support of this project titled Wetland Impact Assessment Report, Lea Hill Park, HS Complex Replacement: 124`h Avenue Improvements Project, Auburn, Washington dated May 24, 2010 under contract to Schreiber Starling & Lane Architects. The delineated wetland boundary of Wetland B within the study area parcel was updated from the October 2008 wetland delineation in April 2010. A small area of additional palustrine forested wetland was found on the north edge of Wetland B. This revised/updated wetland delineation boundary was surveyed by Reid Middleton, Inc. and is depicted in the survey drawing titled Washington State GA, Green River Community College, 124`h Ave./ 3201h St. Improvements Topographic Survey, Sheet 3 of 5 dated May 14, 2010 (Reid Middleton, Inc., 2010). This updated Wetland B boundary description is included in the Results section below. Topography The study area is positioned on the western edge of the Soos Creek subbasin (44,800-acres) within the Middle Green River subwatershed of the Duwamish/Green River Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 9) (see Figures 1, 2 and 3). The topography of the combined study area-consists of higher elevations towards the northwest with an elevation above sea level at 418 at the north edge of the existing baseball field, and sloping down towards the southeast and dropping five (5) feet to an elevation of 413 immediately north of S.E. 3201h Street (see Figures 6 and 7). Soils King County soil survey maps (Snyder et al. 1983) depict three (3) dominant soils in the study area (see Figure 8). Alderwood gravelly loam. 0 to 6 percent slopes (AgB) is a somewhat excessively drained soil underlain by very gravely sand found on terraces and terrace fronts. The surface layer is typically a very dark brown (10YR 2/2) gravelly sandy loam about 2-inches thick. The B2 horizon is typically dark brown (10YR 4/3) gravelly sandy loam about 10-inches thick. The B3 horizon is grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) gravelly sandy loam about 15-inches thick. Permeability is moderately rapid in the surface layer and the subsoil and very slow in the substratum. Runoff is slow and water erosion hazard is 2 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 f ~ slight (Snyder et al. 1983)., Everett gravelly sandy.loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes is not a hydric soil (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2008). Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes (AgC) is typically, characterized. by a very dark brown to dark brown surface layer which extends to a depth of about two inches, and a dark brown, grayish brown, and dark yellowish browm-B horizon .which extendsto a depth of 27. inches. Also included.withimthis soil unit are-poorly drained Norma;. Bellingham, Seattle,jukwila and Shalcar-soils that are classified.as hydric soils. Everett and Neilton non-hydric.soil inclusions are also found. Permeability is moderately rapid in the surface and subsoil and very slow in the substratum (Snyder et al. 1983). Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes is not a hydric soil (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2008). Norma sandy loam (No) is a poorly drained soil formed in alluvium in basins on glaciated uplands and in areas along stream bottoms. This soil is typically characterized by a black sandy loam (IOYR 2/1) (dark grayish brown when dry) surface layer that extends to a; depth of about 10-inches. In the area northwest of Auburn in the =Green River Valleys there are places; there are Norma soils that have an organic surface layer as thick as 12-inches in: some places. s- The B-horizon typically consists of a dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) to light brownish gray (15Y. ;6/2) with:prominent yellowish red (5YR 4/8) and brown (7.5YR 4/4),mottles (very pale brown and reddish yellow when. dry), which extends to .a depth of 30-inches. The B-horizon is commonly, sandy. loam that is.stratified with ;silt loam and loamy:sand in places. Permeability is moderately rapid and the seasonal .water. table is.at or near the surface: The available water capacity is moderately high.to high. Runoff is slow and the,erosion hazard is slight (Snyder et al. 1983). Norma soils are listed as.a hydric soil-inKing County (U.S. Department of Agriculture; 2008). . Hydrology No regulated streams are located within the study area (McLain-Aardal, 2008). A storm drainage and grading plan was prepared for the GRCC Child Care Center located north and upgradient of the study area in January 1995 in support of King County permit review process (The Tsang Partnership, 1995) (see Figure 9).: This non-construction set drawing depicts a stormwater drainage swale positioned along the south edge of the parcel'immediately south ofthe;proposed child care facility parking lot. A 225-ft: long 60-in. diameter CPM 14-guage detention pipe is positioned immediately south of the swale and drains down gradient towards-the west via an.outlet control structure into one fl) wetland immediately north of the+study area. This wetland.was.delineated im:support of the childcare facility development permit process and the wetland boundaries were surveyed,by_ABHL, Inc. This wetland is the same wetland (Wetland A) redelineated by Keith Fabing, Inc. in September 2008. An abandoned stormwater drainage pipe was observed on the soil surface within the northwest portion of4Wetland.A at the time of the September 2008 :field investigation. The pipe was positioned within a broad drainage Swale draining towards the southeast from an existing discharge point located near the northwest corner of the parcel. No active stormwater flow was discharging from this culvert at the time of the-field investigation. Dan Repp of the City of Auburn Public Works :Department; Storm Drainage Utility Division was contacted on August 3, 2010-to confirm the presence of an existing detention pond on a 0.22-acre lot owned by the City of Auburn. positioned at the east edge of the single family residential'neighborhood positioned northwest of the study area (King County.-Parcel No. 1685200200) (Repp, 2010).. Mr. Repp confirmed that stormwater discharges from this detention pond drain onto the GRCC Child Care 3 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/AUP - Auburn;.Washington August 2010 Center parcel via the above mentioned broad drainage swale towards the southeast into Wetland A. Mr. Repp stated that he intends to send Storm Drainage Utility Division field staff out to the study area to confirm Keith Fabing, Inc. field observations that seasonally ponded water in Wetland A can exit Wetland A through a 12-inch CMP stormwater discharge pipe positioned on the north study area boundary immediately north of the existing Lea Hill Park baseball field. This pipe may be associated with the sport field sub-drainage system. It appears that seasonal discharge from this off-site detention pond provides surface hydrologic support to both study area wetlands. A stormwater detention pond is proposed north of and immediately adjacent to Wetland B as part of the 124th Avenue Improvements Project. This detention pond will discharge to Wetland B as a means of insuring proper wetland hydrology and to maintain to the extent possible the integrity of the existing storm drainage regimen (Johnson, 2010). Information regarding how "proper wetland hydrology" is defined or how it was determined is unknown. Existing and proposed post-construction water level fluctuation data in Wetland B including the depth, frequency, duration, and timing of inundation or flooding is not available. A 24-inch diameter CMP stormwater discharge pipe is positioned within the study area on the north edge of Wetland B and on the south edge of the unpaved Lea Hill Park parking area. This pipe discharges into the highest portion of Wetland B and provides surface hydrologic support to the entire study area wetland positioned down gradient from this discharge point. It is unknown how the stormwater drainage pipes associated with adjacent sport field sub-drainage systems are connected to this discharge pipe. Please note that the removal and replacement of this existing stormwater conveyance outfall culvert is included in the 124th Avenue Improvements Project. Surface stormwater discharges into the wetland flow through Wetland B during seasonal high precipitation periods and storm events and exits the study area wetland via a 24-inch concrete pipe positioned at the south end of the parcel immediately north of S.E. 320`h Street. Placement of a new stormwater filter at the south edge of Wetland B is also included in the 124th Avenue Improvements Project. This pipe extends under S.E. 320th Street and discharges into the north edge of the non- wetland stormwater detention area within the GRCC main campus area to the south (see Figure 7). All of the above mentioned stormwater conveyance systems were photo documented and are included in the Photo section below. Wetland Inventories The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map for the vicinity shows one (1) freshwater emergent wetland positioned approximately 0.6-mile north of the study area and two (2) freshwater emergent wetlands positioned approximately 0.9-mile north/northwest of the study area (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2008). The NWI codes for these wetlands are PEMAd - palustrine emergent, temporarily flooded, partially drained; PEMB - palustrine emergent, saturated; and PEMC - palustrine emergent, seasonally flooded (see Figure 10). The King County Sensitive Areas iMAP layer depicts one additional riparian associated wetland imported from 1990 King County wetland inventory mapping (King County, 1991). This wetland is positioned approximate 0.4-mile northwest of the study area east of 116`h Avenue S.E. on both sides (north and south) of S.E. 312th Street (King County, 2008) (see Figure 11). 4 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 Priority Habitat and Species Data The study area is comprised of a combination of forest, scrub-shrub and emergent wetland and upland plant communities that provides a diverse habitat to support a variety of terrestrial and avian wildlife species. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains a number of databases that contain location information on important fish and wildlife species that should be considered in land use decisions and activities. A file search was completed through the Priority Habitat and Species database program for the study area. No priority habitats or species were listed within 100-meters (330-feet) of the study area (see Appendix A). Priority habitats identified within 0.5-mile of the study area and vicinity included the following: • the King County Sensitive Area iMAP wetland positioned approximately 0.4-mile northwest of the study area (described above) (PHS Code: WET; Form #902525) • a regular concentration of Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) positioned approximately 0.5-mile southwest of the study area within an area classified as the Green/Cedar River winter elk range; King County elk habitat includes both resident and winter migratory elk (PHS Code: CEELR, Form # 918540) • Green River valley candidate urban natural open space areas are mapped approximately 0.5-mile east/southeast of the study area; steep forested hill slopes along the Green River valley are unstable but provide wildlife habitat and migration corridors (PHS Code: UNOS; Form #902646) Natural Heritage Program Data A search was completed through the Natural Heritage Information System administered by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program. The program is responsible for information on the state's endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants as well as high quality ecosystems in addition to information on animal species of conservation concern. As of October 31, 2007, there were no records for rare plants or high quality ecosystems in Section 9, Township 21N, Range 5E and Section 16, Township 21N, Range 5E (see Appendix B). METHODS September 23, 2008 Field Investigation Keith Fabing, Inc. delineated one (1) wetland at the northern edge of the study area, and one (1) wetland in the Lea Hill Park portion of the study area on September 23, 2008. Data were collected on vegetation, soil type, and hydrology. The wetlands and wetland buffers within the study area were comprised of a mix of native and nonnative, invasive vegetation. These wetlands contained palustrine emergent, palustrine scrub-shrub and palustrine forested habitat classifications. The boundaries of these two (2) wetlands were delineated using the routine method for jurisdictional wetlands per the Washington State Wetland Delineation Manual (Washington State Department of Ecology, 1997). One (1) very small portion of a scrub-shrub/emergent wetland was positioned at the north edge of the study area. One (1) forested wetland was delineated in the southeast corner of the study area. The wetland boundaries were marked with pink fluorescent wire pin flagging, or with 5 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/A UP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 pink field flagging preprinted with "Wetland Boundary" and hung from woody vegetation at intervals of fifty feet or less. Where woody vegetation was not available, boundary field flagging was tied around live herbaceous vegetation or blackberry canes. The wetland boundaries were surveyed by PACE Engineers, Inc. (PACE Engineers, Inc., 2008) (see Figures 6 and 7). See Appendix C for a more detailed discussion on wetland delineation methodology. April 30, 2010 Field Investigation Wetlands are by definition transition areas. Delineated wetland boundaries often change with time along with changes in the wetland hydroperiod. As mentioned in Section 1 above, Keith Fabing, Inc. staff completed an update of the previously delineated (on September 23, 2008) Wetland B boundary in support of the 124t" Avenue Improvements Project. A newly delineated expanded portion of Wetland B was positioned immediately south of the Lea Hill Park parking area and west of the existing storm drain culvert that discharges into Wetland B. This updated wetland delineation was based on conditions observed during a field investigation on the morning of April 30, 2010. Five (5) additional wetland boundary flags were installed defining in a slight increase in previously delineated wetland area as follows. • Existing B5 flag ties to new B5A • New 135A ties to new B6 • New B6 ties to new B7 • New B7 ties to new B8 • New B8 ties to new B9 • New B9 ties to existing B 10 r~ Both B5 and B 10 pink wetland boundary flags that were placed on September 23, 2008 by Keith Fabing, Inc. were present as pink wetland delineation flagging tied to vegetation and easily located during the April 30, 2010 field investigation. New wetland boundary flags were 3-ft. pink pin flags with pink wetland delineation flagging tied to the flag and, where possible, additional wetland delineation field flagging tied to the nearest vegetation above the updated boundary. The revised total area of Wetland B is 0.37-acre (16,236 sq.ft.). This area was calculated based on the revised wetland boundary survey completed by Reid Middleton, Inc. (McMasters, 2010). In addition, two (2) data plots (one inside and one outside the newly delineated wetland area) were excavated and soil data was gathered to complete the new wetland boundary delineation. These data plots were flagged in the field with 3-ft. blue pin flags labeled DP-C1 and DP-C2. Blue field flagging was tied to the pin flags. Wetland determination data forms for these two (2) new data plots are in Appendix D and are summarized below. Wetland delineation methods are described in detail in Appendix C. The wetland boundary delineation completed in September 2008 has not been field verified by the City of Auburn on-call wetland consultant at this time. Some of the boundary flags placed on September 23, 2008 as depicted on the survey drawing prepared by PACE Engineers, Inc. titled Green River Community College, Lea Hill Park, Wetland/Topographic Survey for SMStemper Architects dated October 16, 2008 (see Figures 6 and 7) were missing during the April 23, 2010 field investigation. Replacement of all missing wetland boundary flags would entail re-delineation of the entire existing Wetland B boundary. Replacement of all previously established wetland boundary flagging where wetland boundaries had not appeared to have changed since the September 23, 2008 wetland boundary delineation was not included in Keith Fabing, Inc. scope of services for this Critical Area Study update. 6 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 Reid.Middleton, Inc. completed a field survey of these new Wetland B boundary flags along with the two new data plot flags',iand reissued a-revised survey report' based on 'the Green River Community College, Lea Hill-Park Wetland/Top'ographic Survey for'SMStempenArchitects produced by PACE ~J Engineers; Inc. dated October-18, 2008 (PACE Project No. 08440.10) (Reid. Middleton, Inc., 2010) (see Figure 12). It is understood that this revise&wetland boundary and adjusted 257ft.,wetland buffer will be depicted to scale in all proposed Trades facility design documents. RESULTS Keith Fabing, Inc. staff first visited the study area on September 23 and 24; 2008. The weather conditions •during the field. investigation were'sunny and cool. Two (2) wetland areas (Wetland A and Wetland B) were delineated. within the study area.'' The Wetland,B boundarymas~updated -on April 30, 2010.-Weather conditions were:cool and overcast. See'wetland delineation data sheets in Appendix'D Wetland A Location. Wetland A is 0.36-acre (15,528 sq.ft.) in size and lies within a large depression throughout much of the GRCC Child Care Center parcel north of the study area (see Figure 6).' A small portion of Wetland A and its associated wetland buffer lies within the northern edge of the.study'area (see Figure 12). Ve eta a,_ tion. Wetland A contains palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) andpalustrine emergent (PEM) vegetation communities. The wet meadow herbaceous community is generally dominated by creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens - FACW) in the upper fenced palustrine emergent' (PEM),weumeadow -portion to the northwest andAhe lowest'portions of the southeast; portion of the wetland; and also dominated by a densely overgrown palustrine'scrub-shrub .(PSS) invasive Himalayan blackberry thickets (Rubus 'armeniacus, FACU [fact)-in the majorityof the lower southeast portion-of the wetland (see Appendix D); This non-native blackberryspecies was "acting hydrophytically"" -in the presence of hydric soils as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Regulatory -Branch and therefore classified as a-dominant FAC species for purposes;of this wetland delineation. Soils. Wetland A soils are mapped as Alderwood-gravelly sandy loam, ,O to 6 percent slopes throughout.GRCC Child Care Parcel and within a portion of the study area. This soil.unit is described in the ".Soils" section` above (see.Figure 8):. Soils were observed to within'a miniinum'20=inch A- horizon. Soils sampled within the data plot consisted of awery:dark brown.(10YR 2/2)rsilt loam A- horizon with yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) mottling to-a depth of 10-inches in DP A-1. These soils appeared to vary somewhat from to the Alderwood series as mapped in this area. Soils in this wetland data plot are considered hydric due to', the presence of dark soil,colors and mottling at a depth of 10- inches within the A-horizon (see Appendix D). Hydrology:. The hydrogeomorphic classification of Wetland A depressional because it is in a topographic depression and has no observable functioning surface outflow to a'stream (U.S. Department of Agriculture; 2001). Indicators of wetland hydrology -inWetland A within the study area included observed soil 'saturation within 18-inches depth in DP'A=.1 • (see Appendix D). These characteristics along with the presence of hydric soils indicate that saturated conditions are present during a significant portion of the growing season in years of normal precipitation. 7 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 The hydrology of the wetland appears to be supported by precipitation, groundwater and stormwater runoff directed into the wetland from the adjacent City of Auburn owned detention pond positioned to the west within the adjacent single family residential subdivision. Seasonally ponded water in Wetland A exits the wetland through a 12-inch CMP stormwater discharge pipe positioned on the north study area boundary immediately north of the existing Lea Hill Park baseball field. This pipe may be associated with the sport field sub-drainage system. It is unknown if Wetland A functions as a groundwater recharge area. It was not determined during the field investigation if stormwater outflow drainage pipes are currently blocked or if design flow capacities are impeded. Wetland Buffer. Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FACU [fac]) and mixed upland grasses in the adjacent Lea Hill Park sport field dominated the Wetland A buffer vegetation community. See Appendix E for a complete list of plants on the site and the Photo section for a photo of the buffer. Wetland B Location. The revised total area of Wetland B is 0.37 acre (16,236 sq.ft.) in size (McMasters, 2010) and lies within a large flow through depression throughout the southeastern portion of the study area (see Figure 7). Vegetation. Wetland B contains palustrine forested (PFO), palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS), and palustrine emergent (PEM) vegetation communities. The forest community is generally dominated by Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia - FACW) along the wetland margins. The palustrine scrub-shrub community is dominated by salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis - FACW) and by patches of dense Himalayan blackberry thickets (Rubus armeniacus, FACU [fac]) in some areas (see Appendix D). This invasive non-native blackberry species was "acting hydrophytically" in the presence of hydric soils as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Regulatory Branch and therefore classified as a dominant FAC species for purposes of this wetland delineation. Slough sedge (Carex obnupta - OBL) is a dominant emergent species throughout the central lower elevations of the wetland. Soils. Wetland B soils are mapped as Norma sandy loam (a hydric soil) and Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes throughout the study area. These soil units are described in the "Soils" section above (see Figure 7). Soils were observed to within a minimum 20-inch A-horizon. Soils sampled within the data plot consisted of a black (IOYR 2/1) organic surface layer to a depth of 2-inches, a dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/1) silt loam A-horizon to a depth of 6-inches, and a black IOYR 2/1 silt loam B-Horizon to a depth of 20-inches in DP B-1. These soils appeared vary somewhat from to the Norma series as mapped in this area. Soils in this wetland data plot are considered hydric due to the presence of dark soil colors above 10-inches immediately below the A-horizon (see Appendix D). Hydrology. The hydrogeomorphic classification of Wetland B is slope because it is in a topographic depression and has observable functioning surface inflow and outflow with an average slope of over 1 percent (3.04-foot drop in elevation over 270 feet) (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2001). Indicators of wetland hydrology in Wetland B included observed soil saturation at 12-inches depth in DP B-I (see Appendix D). These characteristics along with the presence of hydric soils indicate that saturated conditions are present during a significant portion of the growing season in years of normal CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. $ Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 precipitation. The hydrology of the,wetland appears to be supported by precipitation, groundwater and stormwater runoff. It was not determined during the field investigation if stormwater inflow and outflow drainage pipes are partially blocked or if design flow capacities are impeded. The. dominance of slough sedge (Carex obnupta), an obligate wetland species-that occurs in wetland ecosystems greater than.99 percent of the time, suggests that much of the interior portions of Wetland B are moist or inundated during the wet season. The successful proliferation of slough sedge in this interior zone also suggests that seasonal water level fluctuations do not exceed a depth of 42-3 feet in!depth when flowers are in bloom from April to July. The surface outflow from the study. area. wetland drains through,down stormwater conveyance systems on the GRCC main campus and eventuallyato Soos Creek, the Green River.and Puget Sound. It is unknown if Wetland B' functions as a groundwater recharge area. Wetland Buffer. Red alder (Alnus rubra - FACW) and Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia - FACW) dominated the wetland buffer forest canopy. Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis - FACU), red huckleberry(Vacciniuin.parVifolium -:FACU) and trailing blackberry(Rubus ursinus ssp. macropetalus - FACU).dominated the upland scrub-shrub buffer. Sword-fern (Polystichum.munitum - FACU) and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum - FACU) were dominant species in the herbaceous upland buffer. Adjacent roadways encroached significantly on the wetland buffer to the south and east. See Appendix,E for acomplete list of plants on the site and the Photo section-for a photo of the buffer. FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT Wetlands are known to play significant functional roles in their respective ecosystems. and' have uses that are valuedby society:-These intrinsic, features are complex, often inseparable, and difficult to .assess and quantify.: Evaluations.of.the functions of individual wetlands are necessarily qualitative and dependent upon professional judgment. Semi-Quantitative Assessment Methodology A wetland functions and values assessment was conducted for both wetlands within the study area using the Wetland and Buffer Functions`Semi-Quantitative.AssessmentMethodology.(Cooke, 2000). Using the Semi-quantitative Assessment Methodology (SAM), ratings wereassessed for seven categories of wetland functions based o` n a'numbe'r of variables that were evaluated for each category listed below. • Flood/storm water control • Base flow/groundwater support functions • Water quality, improvement'functions • Natur'al' biological'stipport "fiznction • Overall habitat functions • Specific habitat functions • Cultural/socioeconomic functions 9 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fatting, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/A UP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 See Appendix F for complete descriptions of these functional categories. SAM rating forms are in Appendix G. Overall, the potential wetland function of Wetland A is MODERATE. For flood/storm water control, the moderate score reflects small wetland size relative to other vicinity wetlands, depressional configuration, lack of forested cover and bermed outlet. The low score for base flow/groundwater support reflects small wetland size relative to other vicinity wetlands, depressional configuration, and lack of obligate wetland plant species. The high vegetative cover, the depressional configuration, and high vegetation cover gives a high score for water quality improvement. Natural biological support is moderate due to lack of organic export and disturbed buffers, the presence of seasonal open water, moderate organic accumulation and connectivity to buffers and upland habitats. Habitat functions are moderate due to the low habitat diversity and moderate sanctuary or refuge potential with low to moderate specific habitat functions for amphibians, invertebrate species, mammals and birds. Cultural/socioeconomic functions are moderate because this wetland is publicly owned and offers some passive recreational opportunities from the adjacent Lea Hill Park and GRCC Child Care Center along with a high aesthetic value as seen from adjacent single family residences. Overall, the potential wetland function of Wetland B is HIGH. For flood/storm water control, the moderate score reflects the slope configuration, forested cover and bermed outlet. The moderate score for base flow/groundwater support reflects small wetland size relative to other vicinity wetlands, slope configuration, and low relative cover of obligate wetland plant species. The slow flow thru the site and high vegetation cover gives a high score for water quality improvement. Natural biological support is high due to high vegetative structure and diversity with low invasive species presence, high organic accumulation and export. Habitat functions are hi&h due to the high habitat diversity and high sanctuary or refuge potential with high specific habitat functions for amphibians, invertebrate species, mammals and birds. Cultural/socioeconomic functions are high because this wetland is within a publicly owned park that offers some passive recreational opportunities and high aesthetic value as seen from adjacent pedestrian sidewalks and roadways. Washington State Wetland Rating System The Washington State Department of Ecology Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington - Revised was also applied to determine the wetland functions (Hruby, 2004) (see Appendix H). The October 2008 updated/revised wetland rating forms were applied. Wetland A had a score of 16 out of a possible of 32 for water quality functions, a score of 14 out of a possible of 32 for hydrologic functions, and a score of 10 out of a possible of 36 for habitat functions. Wetland B had a score of 16 out of a possible of 18 for water quality functions, a score of 6 out of a possible of 16 for hydrologic functions, and a score of 11 out of a possible of 36 for habitat functions. REGULATORY Several federal, state, and local regulations may apply to development proposals in and near these wetlands. The agency currently having jurisdiction over development activities that affect these wetland buffers is the City of Auburn. 10 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 Federal and State Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) regulates the discharge of dredged and fill materials into waters of the United States, including wetlands, through the COE permitting process and issues a Jurisdictional Determination (JD) for each potentially impacted wetland. The COE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) have joint authority over Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Under Section 404b of the Clean Water Act, the COE and the EPA regulate the discharge of dredged and fill materials of more than 0.10 acre into waters of the United States through the COE permitting process. A Nationwide Permit is required for wetland fill greater than 0.5 acre. An Individual Permit may suffice for wetland fill greater than 0.1 acre but less than 0.5 acre. In some cases, a Nationwide Permit is required for fill greater than 0.25 acre. Under General Condition 13, preconstruction notification (PCN) is required for wetland fill or grading less than 0.1 acre in the waters of the United States. The permitting process takes a minimum of six months and may take as long as two years, particularly when a biological evaluation is required by the COE and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Under General Condition 11 protecting endangered species, the COE has the authority to request a biological evaluation for all projects involving any amount of wetland fill. Since coho salmon are found in Soos Creek that drains this plateau and in the Snoqualmie River, a biological evaluation may be required for any development affecting direct impact to wetlands within the study area. The COE may require more extensive mitigation procedures than those required by the City of Auburn. City of Auburn The City of Auburn regulates wetlands and other environmentally critical areas through its critical areas regulations (Auburn City Code Chapter 16.10). These regulations cover fills, buffer widths and compensation (mitigation) requirements. This Critical Area Study that describes and depicts the delineated wetland boundary and buffer edges to scale is required for review and approval to secure rezoning and administrative use permit approval. The City of Auburn requires upland buffers from the wetland edge that depend on the wetland rating. The City of Auburn does not regulate active stormwater detention facilities as jurisdictional wetlands. Certain uses and activities which are consistent with the purpose and function of the wetland buffer and do not detract from its integrity may be permitted by the director within the buffer depending on the sensitivity of the wetland. Examples of uses and activities with minimal impacts which may be permitted in appropriate cases include permeable pedestrian trails, viewing platforms and utility easements; provided, that any impacts to the buffer resulting from such permitted activities shall be mitigated. Uses permitted within the buffer shall generally be located as far from the wetland as possible. Where existing buffers are degraded, the director may allow limited filling within the buffer when the applicant demonstrates that the buffer will be enhanced according to standards in Chapter 16. 10, including appropriate soil preparation, that will not result in slopes exceeding 25 percent, and there will be no net loss of wetland or buffer functions and values. The City can require that degraded buffers be enhanced/revegetated. 11 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/A UP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 Long-term protection of a regulated wetland and its associated buffer shall be provided by one of the following methods. • It shall be placed in a separate tract on which development is prohibited, protected by execution of an easement dedicated to the city, a conservation organization or land trust, or similarly preserved through a permanent protective mechanism acceptable to the city • The location and limitations associated with the wetland and its buffer shall be shown on the face of the deed or plat applicable to the property and shall be recorded with the King County recording department Note that the director may require increased buffer widths up to 50-feet for Category III wetlands when a larger buffer is deemed necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on site conditions, site design, intensity and operational characteristics of the development/land use. Examples where increased buffers may be required include, but are not limited to, where a larger buffer is necessary to maintain viable populations of species listed as endangered, threatened or sensitive, or when land adjacent to the buffer is susceptible to severe erosion and erosion control measures are inadequate to effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts. The wetland rating for Wetlands A and B per Section 16.10.080 of the Auburn City Code are both "Category III" requiring minimum 25-foot buffers. Wetland and wetland buffer impacts require mitigation (replacement or restoration) under the Auburn City Code. Any allowed development activity within the wetland or wetland buffer requires an approved Critical Area Study in addition to an impact study and mitigation plan requiring replacement of impacted wetland area and functions per Section 16.10.100.C.3. Mitigation for unavoidable wetland buffer impacts can include buffer width averaging and buffer width reduction as determined by the nature of the proposed buffer encroachment. Wetland Ratings The City of Auburn rates wetlands based on size, vegetation communities, diversity of habitat and presence of threatened and endangered species. The Washington State Department of Ecology Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington - Revised was applied to determine the City of Auburn wetland rating, (Hruby, 2004) (see Appendix I). The October 2008 updated/revised wetland rating forms were applied. Wetland A and Wetland B are both Category III wetlands requiring a 25-foot buffers (City of Auburn, 2010) (see Figures 6 and 7). Buffer setback determination criteria are explained in detail in Auburn City Code 16.10.080. WETLAND ADVERSE IMPACT AVOIDANCE The current site plan for the Trades facility does not encroach into any wetlands or wetland buffers. The existing Wetland B hydroperiod is largely dependent upon the relationship between inflow at the north end of Wetland B via an existing 24-inch CMP culvert and outflow at the existing 24-inch culvert at the south end of Wetland B that diverts seasonally ponded water under S.E. 3201h Street to detention ponds on the main GRCC campus. The Wetland B hydroperiod is also dependent on sizing and routine maintenance of the stormwater conveyance culverts at both the north and south end of Wetland B. 12 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community CollegelTrades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 Existing and proposed upstream stormwater facilities associated with the CRCC Child Care Center, the City of Auburn detention pond in the adjacent residential subdivision, the Lea Hill Park baseball field subdrainage system and the stormwater conveyance improvements included in the 124`'' Avenue Improvements Project (including the proposed detention pond positioned immediately upgradient of Wetland B) need to be fully accounted for as part of the final detailed stormwater management plan included in the Trades project building final permitting phase as it relates to the Wetland B seasonal hydroperiod. Wetlands that are subject to alterations in stormwater driven hydrologic support are addressed in the research document titled Wetlands and Urbanization: Implications for the Future. Final Report of the Puget Sound Wetland and Stormwater Management Research Program (Azous and Horner, ed, 1997). Wetlands in King County with increasing urbanization in contributing watersheds are significantly more likely to have lower lentic and terrestrial amphibian richness than wetlands in less urbanized watersheds. Urbanized land uses immediately adjacent to wetlands can decrease native amphibian richness. Water level fluctuation (WLF) has shown a statistically significant relationship with lentic-breeding amphibian richness. Wetlands with WLFs of less than 20 cm are significantly more likely to have a higher proportion of lentic-breeding amphibian richness than those with WLF's exceeding 20 cm (Azous and Horner, 2001). This is particularly significant given the documented worldwide collapse in native frog populations. Because of this, constructed wetland seasonal hydroperiod analysis is a critical design factor to increase the predictability that WLFs above 20 cm do not occur during amphibian breeding season and to avoid adverse impact on amphibian breeding success. Subheading No. 4 on page 239 of Guidesheet 2B addresses hydroperiod WLF limits for western Washington wetlands inhabited by breeding native amphibians from February 1 through May 31 (Horner et.al., 1997). Additional detailed information regarding design considerations for protection of existing biological communities can be found in Chapter 14 of Wetlands and Stormwater Management Guidelines, Guidesheet 2D: Guidelines for the Protection of Specific Biological Communities (pp. 243 - 244). Subheading No. 1 on page 243 addresses design guidelines for wetlands inhabited by breeding native amphibians (Horner et.al., 1997). Wetlands with WLFs above 20 cm have also resulted in lower plant richness in the King County wetland emergent and scrub-shrub vegetation communities (Reinelt, Horner and Azous, 1998). As stated above, constructed wetland seasonal hydroperiod analysis a critical design factor to increase the predictability that WLFs above 20 cm do not occur to avoid adverse impact on native wetland plant reproduction success. Subheading No. 2 on page 238 - 239 of Guidesheet 2B addresses hydroperiod WLF limits for wetlands with relatively high plant species richness and apply to all zones within all western Washington wetlands over the entire year. There has been some concern expressed that wetlands may create breeding areas for mosquitoes that potentially spread human diseases such as West Nile Virus. In western Washington, the virus was detected in eight birds from King, Lewis, Pierce and Thurston counties (Washington State Department of Health, 2009). Hydroperiod seems to be the dominant factor that determines whether a wetland can become larval mosquito habitat during mosquito breeding season, and for which type of mosquito (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, 2006). 13 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 Seasonal hydroperiod analysis that provides data regarding potential inundation and persistent ponding during mosquito breeding season is a critical design factor in Trades facility stormwater planning to avoid creating potential future public health issues in the project vicinity. This is of particular importance given that the study area wetlands are positioned immediately adjacent to a high density use community college and affiliated child care center in addition to the proposed newly developed Lea Hill Community Park. It states directly in the City of Auburn City of Auburn Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan (City of Auburn, 2009), Section 4.8: Minimum Requirement #8: Wetlands Protection in Appendix 1: Minimum Technical Requirements that: "Discharges to wetlands shall maintain the hydrologic conditions, hydrophytic vegetation, and substrate characteristics necessary to support existing and designated uses. The hydrologic analysis shall use the existing land cover condition to determine the existing hydrologic conditions unless directed otherwise by a regulatory agency with jurisdiction. A wetland can be considered for hydrologic modification and/or stormwater treatment in accordance with Guide Sheet 1B in Appendix I-D on the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005)." Detailed information regarding methods for completing a pre-and post-construction wetland hydroperiod analysis can be found in Chapter 14 of Wetlands and Stormwater Management Guidelines, Guidesheet 2B: Guidelines for Protection from Adverse Impacts of Modified Runoff Quantity Discharged to Wetlands (pp. 236 - 240) (Horner et al, 1997) http://your. kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/archive-documents/wlr/wetlands-urbanization- report/Chap 14.pdf Additional information regarding the King County Runoff Time Series (KCRTS) hydrologic program and the calibrated Hydrologic Simulation Program - Fortran (HSPF) can be found in Critical Area Mitigation Guidelines. Appendix A: Wetland Hydrology Management Guidelines (King County, 2007) http://your.kingcounty.gov/ddes/forms/ls-not-samit.pdf Dan Repp of the City of Auburn Public Works Department, Storm Drainage Utility Division can provide guidance regarding which of the hydrologic analysis programs referenced above would be best applied to provide predictability that seasonal WLFs above 20 cm do not occur in Wetland B in order to maintain hydrologic conditions, hydrophytic vegetation and substrate characteristics. Mr. Repp can also address when this analysis needs to be completed in the facility stormwater management planning process. DISCLAIMER Keith Fabing, Inc. has prepared this report for use by S.M. Stemper Architects and other GRCC approved project staff and consultants. In preparing this report, Keith Fabing, Inc. has used the site information supplied by the client and public domain sources and referenced herein. The results and conclusions of this report represent the professional opinions of Keith Fabing, Inc. Findings reported herein are based on information gathered in the field at the time of Keith Fabing, Inc. staff investigations, on Keith Fabing, Inc.'s understanding of federal, state and local regulations governing wetlands, and on examination of public-domain information concerning the combined study area. 14 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 The wetland boundary, site hydrology, wetland classification, and functions and values discussed herein are Keith Fabing, Inc's best professional opinion, based on the circumstances and site conditions at the time of the study. Work performed conforms to accepted standards in the field for routine delineations, according to the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Washington State Department of Ecology, 1997). Please note that only the City of Auburn and the Seattle District Regulatory Branch of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) can officially determine and verify the boundaries of the study area jurisdictional wetland. The Corps determines federally regulated jurisdictional wetland boundaries, per Section 404 of the Clean Water Act when direct wetland impacts are proposed. Many different regulatory agencies may require review of final site development plans that could affect zoning, water quality, and/or habitat functions of the study area and lands positioned downstream of the study area. Therefore, the findings and conclusions contained in this report are a professional opinion only. This report should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies and wetland boundaries field verified by City of Auburn critical area staff prior to any detailed facility planning and design. REFERENCES Literature Cited Azous, Amanda L. and Richard R. Horner, ed. 2001. Wetlands and Urbanization: Implications for the Future. Lewis Publishers - CRC Press LLC. Boca Raton, Florida. 338 pp. City of Auburn. 2006. City ofAuburn Comprehensive Plan. Adopted August 1986, amended April 1997, revisions through November 2006. City of Auburn. 2009. City of Auburn Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan. Volume 2: Appendicies. City of Auburn Public Works Department. December 2009. City of Auburn. 2010. Auburn City Code. Chapter 16.10 Critical Areas. Passed February 1, 2010. Cooke, Sarah S. 2000. Wetland and Buffer Functions, a Semi-Quantitative Assessment Methodology. Cooke Scientific Services, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetland and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC. Publication No. FWS/OBS-79/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Horner, Richard R., Amanda A. Azous, Klaus O. Richter, Sarah S. Cooke, Lorin E. Remelt and Kern Ewing. 1997. Wetlands and Urbanization: Implications for the Future. Final Report of the Puget Sound Wetland and Stormwater Management Research Program. Amanda A. Azous and Richard R. Horner, ed. Chapter 14: Wetlands and Stormwater Management Guidelines. pp. 225 - 255. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, Washington and the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 15 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 Hruby, Tom. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington - Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #04-06-025. 126 pp. Johnson, Wendell. 2010. Memorandum to Stephen Starling, Schreiber Starling & Lane Architects from Wendell Johnson, Reid Middleton, Inc. RE: Green River Community College1124" Avenue Improvements/Wetland Buffer Impacts dated May 11, 2010. Kerwin, John and Tom S. Nelson (Eds). 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report, Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9 and Vashon Island. Washington Conservation Commission and King County Department of Natural Resources. December 2000. Keith Fabing, Inc. 2008. Critical Area Study, Green River Community College & Lea Hill Park, Auburn, Washington, King County Parcel Nos. 0921059229, 0921059020, and 1621059006. October 23, 2008. 13 pp. plus Appendicies. Keith Fabing, Inc. 2010. Wetland Impact Assessment Report, Lea Hill Park, HS Complex Replacement: 124`" Avenue Improvements Project, Auburn, Washington. May 24, 2010. 19 pp. plus Attachments. King County. 1991. King County Wetland Inventory. King County Environmental Division, Parks, Planning and Resources Department. March 1991. King County. 2007. Critical Area Mitigation Guidelines. Appendix A: Wetland Hydrology Management Guidelines. King County Department of Development and Environmental Services. Renton, Washington. June 28, 2007. 19 pp. King County. 2008. King County GIS Center. Parcel Viewer. Site accessed October 20, 2008. < http://www.metrokc.gov/gis/mapportal/Pviewer-main.htm > Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2008. Soil Map - King County Area, Washington. Web Soil Survey. National Cooperative Soil Survey. PACE Engineers, Inc. 2008 Green River Community College Lea Hill Park Wetland/Topographic Survey for SMStemper Architects. October 16, 2008. Reid Middleton, Inc. 2010. Washington State GA, Green River Community College, 124`" Ave./ 320" St. Improvements Topographic Survey. Sheet 3 of 5. May 14, 2010 (no revision dates) (File No.222009020). Reinelt, Horner and Azous. 1998. Impacts of Urbanization on Palustrine (Depressional Freshwater) Wetlands - Research and Management in the Puget Sound. Urban Ecosystems. Vol. 2, No. 4, December 1998. pp. 219 - 236. S.M. Stemper Architects. 2008. Lea Hill Park and GRCC Trades: Existing Conditions. Drawing rendered September 15, 2008. ,r, 16 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 Snyder, Dale E., Phillip S. Gale, and Russell F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey, King County Area, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. The Tsang Partnership, Inc. 1995. Green River Community College Child Care Center Storm Drainage & Grading Plan. Sheet C4. October 8, 1994, updated January 12, 1995. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2001. Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Classification System: Natural Resources Conservation Service. October 30, 2001 < http://www.wa.nres.usda.gov/technical/soils/county_hydric_lists.html > U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2008. Hydric Soils List, King County Area, Washington: Detailed Soil Map Legend. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 10-30-2001. < http://www.wa.nres.usda.gov/technical/soils/county_hydric_lists.html > U.S. Department of the Interior. 2007. U. S. Department of Fish and Wildlife. National Wetland Inventory. Wetlands Mapper. < http://www.fws Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2009. Western Washington Phase H Municipal Stormwater Permit, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and State Waste Discharge General Permit for Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewers in Western Washington. State of Washington, Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Issuance Date: January 17, 2007; Effective Date: February 16, 2007; Modification Date: June 17, 2009; Expiration Date: February 15, 2012. Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2007. Duwamish/Green Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) #9 Elevation Model. GIS Technical Services. Olympia, Washington. November 16, 2007. Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE). 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication No. 96-94. Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. March 2006a. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State - Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1). Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-01 lb. Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Health. 2009. Washington State's West Nile Virus Resource Guide. Washington State Departments of Health, Agriculture, Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, and Transportation, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, and Washington State University. 2009. 24 pp. Personal Communications McLain-Aardal, Kelly. 2008. Environmental Protection Manager. City of Auburn, Department of Planning, Building & Community Development. < kmclain-aardal@auburnwa.gov > September 24, 2008. McMasters, Michael. 2010. Email communication with Stephen Starling, Schreiber Starling & Lane Architects from Michael McMasters, Susan Black & Associates, Inc., May 24, 2010. 11:52 AM. ,..l~ 17 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community CollegelTrades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 Repp, Dan. 2010. City of Auburn. Department of Public Works, Storm Drainage Utility Division. Phone Conversation with Keith Fabing, Keith Fabing, Inc. August 3, 2010. Additional references related to wetland determination methodology and wetland regulations are found at the end of Appendix C of this wetland report. t 18 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades.Rezone/AUP -Auburn, Washington August 2010 =i This page intentionally left blank V 19 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 FIGURES 20 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 This page left intentionally blank 21 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/A UP = Auburn, Washington August 2010 r _ I „ f ' 1 _ n V ~t X U 4,1 C J Pf\ f Squek AbuotaA 1T1f ~~t i 4 j 1 1 ~v 'E- f{ Y fit' ' Ll -1 r i i e. 1 J' 7 1 14- e I rtd ~ ~ t 4 lrf ~ f t ~L.'n ( i `t - t r' r r 1 s i+ ..G . f • • T ti. a4 i "I jr IC 12M 1(ap C-ty'--_} 5226ft Legend /.f County Boundary ftyabnp x klourdain Peaks Idea County water rtesoarce tt: a.A.r>h Imaraery Areas n:toamwatd.~ Higt-y. Ej King County Drairaip Basins a..an rt Stnats r: sonman ..-v C.aa a.m,nr~ An«,e. fl: 0u.an.e,G.~n (cora) FIGURE 1 - DUWAMISH/GREEN RIVER WATERSHED (King County, 2010) 22 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/A UP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 Baas Creek ~ f FIGURE 2 - SOOS CREEK SUBBASIN (Kerwin, et.al., 2000) 23 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/A UP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 SE 313TH iH ~ e SE 919TH 0. ~ )}f SE 314TH SST x SE 314TH p_ t SE 3W11 pt 10 SE 315TH pL N_ SE Mg11t ST .u L SE 318TH PL Q v SE 317TH ST tt ~ ~ x se 31T(H M SE 318TH WAY sF'~BTk R SE 319TH PL 4 D - SE 320TH ST U y Q Lf V SW SE 321ST PL a SE 322ND PL .;s A BE 323RD pL f r~ 7r IC 12M King County 0 507ft Legend County Boundary Hgh-y Lo rrawuy8- x Mountain Peaks AA-ft Uppa Trd-l-yS- Highways L-l+ Streets Parcels (cone) CAO Tributary Basins (cost) FIGURE 3 - SUBBASIN BOUNDARY (King County, 2010) 24 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 i a . r t Tj yV (J I sae , ttq s. a v x i s t Full Size Electronic File Available Upon Request FIGURE 4 - STUDY AREA (S.M. Stemper Architects, 2010) 25 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 SE 316TH ST 0927059084 12307 1683600010 1685200020 7665200190 12013 31603 31602 12111 12719 12127 31$04 { 1663600220 1685200010 1685200030 4 31606 12020 31608 31675 1685200780 09 ID59018 092105974; 12305 31671 ~l 12124 31612 7137900100 31614 12118 0921059228 31703 37702 71379002/0 1685200060 31620 31707 37706 31705 3170? 37620 7137900080 713)900710 71379002811 6 317901 7137900120 31709 31708 12023 7683600050 72721 31628 1683600760 31626 7685200070 31629 7685200760 31710 1683600150 1685200090 7137900060 31715 tV 31774 31647 31631 31630 1685200100 31636 31717 31716 7737406 d' 1683600070 12120 . 31639 ?685200150 7137900050 31721 31720 31651 37634 SE 317T" PL 1685200200 31723 31722 7137900x40 1685200110 31713 u 31727 12512 31638 12119 1695200130 0921059229 31729 31728 72131 y 713!900220 72504 12,25 37646 37$42 1695200120 12135 ¢ 31734 31733 71379003.10 1683800100 31807 31802 4239430080 1685210140 = 31733 0: ?737400200 0921059019 31804 31808 31812 31740 124" 31806 31810 31741 12436 0921059224 31818 7137900010 12428 31824 31820 31814 31747 12416 "1921059061 37822 31876 7137900190 12443 0921059215 r „;fi SE 31HPH WAy 7137400y60 72437 7137901030 7737901010 7137900980 092105MC7 1340172407 12419 12431 37819 111151 12107 "9 i2N3 1N25 7137990959 31908 12103 lea Hill Park 7737901020 7137900990 31406 31910 12707 4-139400160 12703 12111 _ r 31914 31918 7?713 12115 31916 12123 i { 37920 12175 12121 0921059164 921"159.15 3192? 31426 31920 12111 12119 3t 914 423940TRC J . SE 32UTH ST 12401 162."959003 1621959906 {C 12008 Knq County 0 2708 Legend 1 _1 County sourbarY Mgti+w O Parks x Mountain Peaks s^r mohway. urban Growth Area Line Streams Streets Parcels teontt FIGURE 5 - PARCEL MAP (King County, 2010) 26 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 ! a r* i *F f a r%• Y~ ~ 2q~. I + { ! ~bg t w w G (j~5ii~~ ~ •~poeogeo.Jpo®a.y. ¢ ~9a.iipy~yE ~A~lF 77}}EE & x I 8g Full Size Electronic File Available Upon Request FIGURE 6 - WETLAND A BOUNDARIES AND TOPOGRAPHY (PACE Engineers, Inc., 2008) 27 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/A UP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 a A rd rt 9 ' r it Y k s t b i g x - y ar elk& yr' law L EGme 6 raro lsc .axrnr xm+wr h u<v aar. u ~un q b P oW1.ua ssM1 aarttv m p nwn nrsw -v-__.... +yrur EKr a CO .[vu r~i w~ .prv GMPHIC SCA X C olio , - - - m ul ru =s i~ ww cm mvi xn.w~. axc. avvna. %wu+Rrvvxwwc Full Size Electronic File Available Upon Request FIGURE 7 - WETLAND B BOUNDARIES AND TOPOGRAPHY (PACE Engineers, Inc., 2008) 28 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 *Ai 0 v ; -R X u v r , IP~r w'm x' r ~ I l 561840 581920 Sfi2000 562080 582180 562240 582320 562400 582480 A 0 50 100 200 300 ulnrs 0 250 300 Feet 1 000 7.500 Map Unit Symbol I Map Unit Name AgO Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, _ 0 to 6 percent slopes AgC Aldenvood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes No Norma sandy loam FIGURE 8 - SOIL SURVEY (Natural Resource Conservation Service, 2008) 29 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/A UP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 !VI>w■1~1a~~IL■a■L ~ ww-- KIM- Of orwe= Room w~ ■ r +1 -wpw ~ r • r .w I .b -wr MR AM min s, jmmt~l -"Una" _ _ t4l f Full Size Electronic File Available Upon Request FIGURE 9 - CHILD CARE CENTER DRAINIAGE PLAN (The Tsang Partnership, Inc., 1995) 30 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 r PSSA PUBHh t PEMA PFPA PABH PEMAd t i PEMB PEMC R2USC r? Wash Al", ir~`~" ;Auburn ` R2UBH Digital PSSC-, - ' ■ i; P PUBHx PUBKx/& 2E . /J i Scale: 1:27,916 FIGURE 10 - NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2007) 31 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 Legend I County Boundary i..: .;.x MODERATE SWDM Landslide Hazards x Mountain Peaks SEVERE L.WWaa Haratl Highways ® Sole Source Aquifer ~ Har 0-ap. Street SAO Wetland CAO Tributary Basins H'nw® SAO Landslide -Trsw.ye-- A.- ~ SAO Coal Mine U-e T'*-yeawn LO°~ ® SAO Seismic Parcels SAO Erosion Wildlife Network f^ Chinook Distribution SAO Stream . Sensitive Area Notice on Title y C-1 Drainage Complainta 'Al C-2P. ...wi Areas Susceptible to Chas 4srma.e Groundwater Contamination Cis nor u..e®ll..e Lakes and Large Rivers ~ H Streams Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Floodway Q 100 Year Floodplain ® car' c..pa y z Channel Migration Hazard ' Areas caugwy W -T. ST E STN P N SE 3~6rH M G i d ~ r s£ o H q sr narH a. - nTH s7 ~ C n vA~iY ~sr Y`',~J.";a('~'tir.~l .~P" ,~,.■F~ sE ~,urH ST S ~tty{~`• Lt Hill NU St AN / fdAtl~ a~.~ err .t a C H.:i .S(, ► AN =sears.. r~tizrHd~t~■ sE.s,zrHw ' r % ss a,arH~ 3 sF=nsT., sr ~ ~ _ z ~ l; ,p r 1 %4 sc 3,srw sr v- ~ ses,QH R ~ ° t r ~ aair.r sT ~ ~ sE UrrHp = ~l~a i'P~ t'.Y• Sf I2t5i> SE Ttt ST z a'. SE b8' se ~rtan sr < W a a • sf mrH sr 1L r AEaiN / r~ ~ erg' 11 W 111 H 9WYwAY'k, FIGURE I I - KING COUNTY CRITICAL AREAS (King County, 2010) 32 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 i - 1= 111. S.L l ,I ~ t I ; t i i 1 1 1 I t }t t a t y. 1 Y JL~ 1 1 ~ 1 ilia I 1 b- I ; I 11 1 I i 0 t 9 1-, 1 _ II ~ I I I \ 1 - I I 40- 0- 1 6- I A ff. - Full Size Electronic File Available Upon Request FIGURE 12 - REVISED WETLAND A BOUNDARY (Reid Middleton, Inc., 2010) 33 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/A UP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 PHOTOS 34 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 This page left intentionally blank 35 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/A UP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 , w r r . r p t yr',•.f i ".fry ,Y y as # ti: "'~s" +r aye, hygw, ,q x °a as .a^•~'. r` r,"~~' ~.~y~~ y.. 7 i ,►,.~Pyg~,. _.~h !t rata ' 1. tA nT ' Tiff ,~,j`~r ° u ;00 V 50 low AL'. 11'• a, ~ ` # t yr` a: § ai'~+.~"~,"ipr' tr - ~T~ x .,tai YI► r %X Photo 1: Wetland A Looking NW at Off-Site Detention Pond Drainage Swale Culvert 4VZ ~ ~ ~ ~ tr. ..n, i ~ yes ~';„.v~~~•_ a _jk - r .0 t .a ~!"'1` '~-..~'d wd,3 ,.tr'. 1 • y"~y '.r ~~.Yq y., ` ` zi ' c`~, xy~'e~,,~ , •.^r. ~ ~~`-lr~` :'+'4 A`v . z fir. Photo 2: Wet Season Ponding in Wetland A Drainage Swale Looking NW 36 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/AUP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 4 p Ni x,aj, J• A, s } T Photo 3: South Edge of Wetland A Looking SW at Storm Drainage Entry at Ballfield Edge w~. NN 57 40 Y I w ♦ ti 'fir ~X.~~• y ~ l ~ Jam... a 4# Photo 4: North Edge of Wetland A Looking N at Storm Drainage Entry to Wetland 37 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/A UP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 l Jµ- a,„y ~ ~ ~1'V .7P.< ~~r''"►'Z .w.~^ Yi' ~ s ~ - ~ a~t'' r ~ a r ~ ~ max. ~ , j~` ~S. ~ fi"r""' Stu ~ ~~►~a, ~ # *;'by,` ~~~AAA~ ~ A.. Islip Photo 5: Wetland A Data Plot Looking S at Slough Sedge Dominated Wetland Interior , yl\ 1 a it V1w ~Y A, Photo 6: South Edge of Wetland B Looking SE at Storm Drainage Under S.E. 320`h Street 38 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/A UP - Auburn, Washington August 2010 L' ~ r r A'ir 3- Photo 7: Wetland A East Buffer Looking SW at Ball Field/North Study Area Boundary s ~a S y -'air ~ o`~c~ ~ fit; -w•'M'i y ^'s..: ~~~.t ~ v ~ ` - -fir ! yeas *F +-'\~'e! `a. a ~d p p, s. s. ~ _ - y~~. yr- p+. a .41 n U, oo4 a 1 ~r ~ F w ~c 3. .,ems ~ < ~J,"~yy Y~. 'iii . { ,ySiy, a. T'V 4, Ilk, Photo 8: Wetland B West Buffer Looking SE at Edge of Existing Maintained Lawn 39 CRITICAL AREA STUDY Keith Fabing, Inc. Green River Community College/Trades Rezone/A UP - Auburn, Washington August 2010