Loading...
2016-09-07 Architectural Design Board Packet1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. �1 o� NJI Agenda Edmonds Architectural Design Board "" Ixyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 SEPTEMBER 7, 2016, 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of draft minutes: July 6, 2016 APPROVAL OF AGENDA AUDIENCE COMMENTS MINOR PROJECTS PUBLIC MEETINGS 1. Madrona School Replacement CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS / ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION ADB MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Architectural Design Board Agenda September 7, 2016 Page 1 2.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/7/2016 Approval of draft minutes: July 6, 2016 Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft minutes Narrative Draft minutes are attached. Attachments: ADB160706d Packet Pg. 2 2.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting July 6, 2016 Vice Chair Guenther called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 5t` Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present T Cary Guenther, Vice Chair Athane Tarrant Kemen Lien, Senior Planner cm Tom Walker, Vice Chair Karin Noyes, Recorder ( Brian Borofka % Lois Broadway Joe Herr vi m Lauri Strauss APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER BOROFKA MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 4, 2016 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. VICE CHAIR WALKER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. MINOR PROJECTS: Edmonds Waterfront Center Mr. Lien advised that the Senior Center is leading an effort to replace the existing building with a new building on the same site that will accommodate the Senior Center, as well as provide space for a variety of other community events. The property is owned by the City, and the current lease requires that the Senior Center obtain City Council approval for the design prior to applying for land -use and building permits. Ultimately, the land -use application will require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, design review by the Architectural Design Board, a Conditional Use Permit, and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. Since the City Council must approve the design prior to application, the Senior Center is seeking early input from the Board on the preliminary design for the project. The idea is for the Board to get an early look at the project and provide feedback before it is presented to the City Council next week. This meeting is not a public hearing and no public comment should be taken at this time. The project will ultimately come back to the Board in the future for a public hearing and design review. Phil Lovell, Edmonds, said he is currently a member of the Planning Board and a retired civil engineer. He has done a lot of work with public and private entities throughout his career, and he has been working with the Senior Center as a volunteer consultant for nearly three years. The purpose of the presentation is to make sure the Board is aware of the Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 6, 2016 Page 1 of 9 Packet Pg. 3 2.1.a project and to solicit preliminary feedback. He introduced Chris Wolfe, Accounting Manager for the Edmonds Senior Center, as well as Roger Tucker and Sally Knodell from environmental WORKS, the leading design team for the project. He also noted that members of the Senior Center Board and Building Committee were also present in the audience. Mr. Lovell reviewed that the Senior Center has been working on the project for close to three years, starting with a feasibility study that was largely deemed necessary to determine the feasibility of making very necessary repairs to the current building. The City owns both the land and the existing building and has contributed to the Senior Center's annual operating budget since the 1970s. The Senior Center is an institution in the area and in the County, and it is a valuable asset to the community. Mr. Lovell reported that the Senior Center decided fairly early in the process that the necessary repairs would be overly expensive, but they also considered the potential of renovating and updating the entire complex. However, because r Edmonds waterfront was historically the site of numerous shingle mills, the resulting soil conditions are less than N desirable. In addition, the existing building was meant to be a display and storage facility, and was never designed to co function as it is currently programmed. The foundation slabs are unsettling and the building has leaks, as well. As the >% cost of renovating the existing building would be significant, the Senior Center also considered the option of replacing the structure, which led to the arrangement that is now a public/private partnership between the City and the Senior 4; Center (a non-profit organization). The project has evolved into the Edmonds Waterfront Center, which will be a combined Senior Center/Community Center. The intent is for the facility to serve the senior community during the E weekday hours and the community at large during the evening and weekend hours. The Senior Center has been working E closely with Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Manager, to create the appropriate spaces within the cc building to accommodate a variety of programming needs. The proposed building will be between 26,000 and 27,000 square feet in size. ° Mr. Lovell advised that the 40-year, long-term lease between the Senior Center and the City requires that the Senior ° a Center design and finance construction of the new facility. Maintenance of the facility will be the Senior Center's Q responsibility, as well. The site is located within the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone and is designated as a park. The City has decided to upgrade and restore the waterfront area in conjunction with the building project, and the intent is CD to remove the old bulkhead and create a more accessible and soft beach area for the community to enjoy. V Mr. Lovell emphasized that the Senior Center has made a significant effort to involve the public in the process. A ti visioning workshop was held last May that was well attended. The workshop was followed by an open house that was CD co -hosted by Sustainable Edmonds and the Senior Center. The purpose of the open house was to introduce the public to op the schematic design. Before the preliminary designs are presented to the City Council next week, the Senior Center felt a it was very appropriate to introduce the Board to the project, as well. Mr. Lovell advised that the vision of the project is to create a facility with a holistic model program that maximizes the c m z full potential of participants of every age. The goal is to offer a range of programs that serve citizens of all ages and to protect, preserve and enhance the rare waterfront property for community use. a Roger Tucker, Director, environmental WORKS, said the focus of his company's work is on community facilities and projects for underserved communities. Sally Knodell, Lead Architect, environmental WORKS, provided an aerial photograph to show the relationship of the subject property to surrounding properties. She noted that the Ebb Tide Condominiums are located to the south, followed by the waterfront park and parking. An office building is located to the North, and Railroad Avenue is located to the east, with the railroad tracks located across the street. In the next illustration, the proposed site plan was superimposed onto the aerial photograph. A black line identified the location of the proposed beach habitat restoration project that will accompany the proposed Community Center Project. The intent of the restoration project is to soften Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 6, 2016 Page 2 of 9 Packet Pg. 4 2.1.a the beach edge and extend the walkway to be continuous along the waterfront. The creosote pilings would be removed to create new habitat. Ms. Knodell reviewed that the project will include a more convenient and organized parking area that is easier to navigate. It is anticipated that the new configuration will provide the same number of stalls as the current facility. Also, the American's with Disabilities (ADA) access will be easier and more convenient, and there will be a pedestrian path along Railroad Avenue. In addition, most of the stormwater runoff from the parking lot will feed into a bioswale and then into a rain garden before it is discharged into Puget Sound. However, because of the higher floor that is required to address sea level rise, a portion of the parking lot is sloped and some water will drain into the existing City storm drain. Currently, all of the stormwater from the site drains directly into Puget Sound without any water -quality treatment. Mr. Tucker explained that at the onset of the project, a few firms were asked to do early concept designs that were intended to solicit the Senior Center's reaction to the overall design and the building's relationship to the Ebb Tide r Condominiums to the south and the office building to the north. Maintaining the view corridors was very important, as N right now, the bulkhead provides a great place for people to view the waterfront. At the same time, it is important to co recognize that the Ebb Tide Condominiums is a very tall building (5 stories), with a blank wall on the north side. Rather % than look at this blank wall from the new center, the idea was to push the center closer to the condominiums and create a pedestrian walkway between the two buildings that connects Railroad Avenue to the waterfront. The public areas 4; proposed on the north side of the building are intended to provide a stronger connection between the street, center and waterfront. E Ms. Knodell advised that, early in the process, a lot of sentiment was expressed about giving back to the community a highly flexible and usable facility and a more active waterfront that serves the general population. Additional pedestrian traffic is anticipated if the waterfront walkway is contiguous, and the proposed building design offers both inside and outside space for the general public to enjoy. The intent is to pull people into the site from the waterfront and Railroad Avenue. She described some of the features of the proposed building design as follows: • Space is allocated on the 1st floor for the existing Thrift Store to remain on the site. • The main entry on the north side aligns with the pedestrian walkway that connects to Railroad Avenue. • A meeting/conference room is proposed in the northeast corner of the 1st floor • An open stairway will surround a coffee kiosk on the ground floor. • The curved portion of the building (northwest corner) will serve as a lounge area that will be accessible to everyone. It includes a vestibule that leads to the waterfront walkway. The lounge area will extend out onto the outdoor plaza area. • The 1st floor plan includes a large banquet room, which can be divided in half to meet various community needs. Adjacent to the banquet room will be a storage room, commercial kitchen and bridal/green room. A stage would be located on the south end of the banquet room. • A 14-foot wide landscape strip will run between the west side of the building and the waterfront walkway. The 9-foot walkway will further separate the building from the bulkhead. • Four multi -purpose rooms, each about 700 square feet, will be located on the west side of the 2nd floor. The partitions can be moved to double the space of the rooms when needed. A teaching kitchen would be located between the multi -purpose rooms. • The majority of the 2nd floor will be office and medical clinic space, with a waiting room on the north end of the building. • There will be two additional conference rooms on the 2nd floor. The larger conference room will be easily accessible from the main entry on the lst floor. • On the eastern facade there are opportunities for art or community -focused panels in front of the thrift shop. The water collected in the proposed rainwater cisterns on the eastern fagade could be used to operate the toilets. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 6, 2016 Page 3 of 9 Packet Pg. 5 2.1.a • The northeast corner facade will be completely glass, as would the curved portion of the building facade in the northwest corner. The design team is working to fine tune the design to solve the dichotomy of the impacts associated with storm activity with the desire to take advantage of the incredible views. • The majority of the western facade ill also be glass to take advantage of the waterfront view. Ms. Knodell reminded the Board that the zoning code limits building height to just 30 feet. Given the additional requirement that the lst floor be raised an additional two feet to accommodate sea level rise, the project is vertically constrained. The goal of the design is to incorporate northwest materials into the project, but minimizing the use of metals. Current feedback from shoreline experts is that all metals must be stainless steel and synthetic materials provide a more durable finish. The goal is to at least meet the LEED Silver Standard, and endeavor to meet the LEED Gold Standard if the budget can accommodate it. Board Member Strauss voiced concern about the amount of glass proposed for the new building. She pointed out that r when walking in downtown Edmonds between the 4:00 and 5:00 p.m., many business owners have their western -facing cm window shades pulled down to block out the sun because it gets too hot. The overhang that is proposed on the western ( facade will probably not do much to block the afternoon sun, and she suggested that the design team model the daylight % as the project moves forward. Board Member Broadway asked if the waterfront boardwalk in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums would be part of the project. Ms. Knodell advised that the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Manager is working on this project independent of the Community Center Project. Mr. Lovell added that a lot of work has been done with the Ebb Tide Condominium owners in an attempt to complete that length of the waterfront walkway. However, nothing has been confirmed to date. Mr. Lien explained that, although the walkway project is separate, the plan is to have the connection done at the same time as the Community Center. The walkway would be located in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums where the City currently has an easement. Board Member Broadway observed that the public access on the north side of the building from Railroad Avenue to the waterfront appears to be about 8 to 9 feet wide. She recommended that the design team consider a wider sidewalk in this location because it is the only public access to the beach in this location. She also suggested that monument signage on Railroad Avenue should be integrated into the design rather than an afterthought. Board Member Broadway commented that there does not appear to be a loading area to serve the building. Given that the I" floor will house a banquet room and the thrift store, a loading area will be needed. She also commented that the current parking configuration only appears to include one ADA stall, and compliance with the City's code will require more. Given the audience and patrons that the building will serve, she hopes the design team considers opportunities to provide more ADA stalls. Ms. Knodell advised that a loading area will be provided at the south end of the parking area that is located on the east side of the site. The intent is to also provide two ADA parking stalls by the main entry, one on either side of the access. Board Member Broadway said it is difficult from the perspectives provided to understand the transition in height between the western landscaping and the boardwalk component and sand beyond. Her sense is that there is enough height change that a guard rail will be required. Ms. Knodell said the current position of the team is that all of the openings along the banquet room will be operational for ventilation, but not for people to pass through. There will be a 3-foot vertical separation between the marina walkway to the finished floor of the building, but the western facade will have a two -foot solid wall before the glass starts. Board Member Broadway said she is more concerned about the vertical separation between the plaza area and the beach below. Board Member Herr suggested that the drawings should be updated to eliminate references to gender. For example, the "bridal room" could simply be called the "green room." Also, he questioned if the design should designate separate restroom facilities for men and women given the current political climate. Mr. Tucker pointed out that the two larger restrooms would be designated for men and women, but there would also be an additional unisex restroom on each floor. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 6, 2016 Page 4 of 9 Packet Pg. 6 2.1.a Board Member Herr asked where the Senior Center's current programs would be located during construction of the new facility. Mr. Wolfe answered that the Senior Center has had conversations with Harbor Square and the North Sound Church about the possibility of relocating their programs on a temporary basis. It is likely that the programs will be scattered throughout the community, but there is every intent to continue all programs during the 12 to 15-month construction period. Board Member Borofka asked how far along the project design is. Mr. Wolfe answered that the design is close to completion. The design team and Building Committee has spent more than a year going over the plans, and public meetings have been held to solicit feedback from the community. They feel the designs are close to what the final design will be. Board Member Borofka asked who would be responsible for maintaining the exterior of the building, and Mr. Lovell r answered that the Senior Center would be responsible for maintenance and operation of the new building for the next 40 N years. Board Member Borofka asked if much thought had been given to the selection of materials in terms of co minimizing maintenance costs. He also asked if the design team has considered using reflective glass on the western % facade to reduce sun exposure and sound proof glass on the eastern facade to reduce the impact of noise associated with the railroad tracks. Mr. Wolfe said these issues will be considered as the design is finalized over the next few months. There are good materials available that will work for this particular environment, but they are costlier. He said he believes the design team can come up with a really good plan for maintaining the building. He explained that rental income will be critical, and this revenue will be set aside in a reserve account to take care of long-term maintenance. He E concluded that it is better to spend more for appropriate materials up front to lower the long-term maintenance costs going forward. 13 4- 0 Vice Chair Walker requested more information about the proposed drainage system. Mr. Tucker answered that they c have not reached full design of the drainage system yet, but the concept is that the central landscaped island would be the 0 CL primary treatment swale, and then the water would be piped into a rain garden and then to Puget Sound. Vice Chair Q Walker asked if the remaining landscaped areas would be normal garden space, and Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. N CD Vice Chair Walker asked if the design team had any discussion about trying to maximize the public space around the V exterior of the building. For example, have they considered creating a roof garden. Mr. Lovell said roof gardens have 13 been brought up by a number of people. However, the 30-foot height limit and the requirement that the building be Q raised two feet to accommodate the flood plain will not allow roof occupancy. Mr. Lien clarified that the height limit in CD the CW zone is 30 feet. In addition, the updated Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Plain Map op has adjusted the average flood elevation to 12 feet, and the City's updated Critical Areas Ordinance requires that height a in the coastal easement zone be measured from two feet above the base level elevation. Although there are exceptions to the height limit for elevators, stairs, etc. there are no exceptions for railings. Going above the 30 -foot height limit would m require a variance, and variances are very difficult to obtain in the City of Edmonds. Mr. Tucker said the design team z considered the concept of having a deck off the curved area at the 2nd floor level. While this would be wonderful, it was not within budget. a Vice Chair Walker suggested that the panels that are proposed in front of the thrift store (eastern facade) could be replaced with a digital system that is easy to change out. He said he likes the stone element behind the cisterns on the eastern facade, but he suggested that more green could be incorporated into the design to help break up the building. Perhaps some grasses could be added at the base of the western facade, as well. Mr. Wolfe agreed that the softening the entire perimeter with more landscaping is something the design team should consider. He commented that shrinking the floor area on the north end of the building allows more opportunity to incorporate landscaping. He noted that the City requires a view corridor of 30%, and the current proposal would provide a 50% view corridor. Vice Chair Walker suggested that the landscape architect consider opportunities to add features in the open plaza area for children to play on. Central Saint Martins College in London is a good example of an open plaza with a water feature during the summer Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 6, 2016 Page 5 of 9 Packet Pg. 7 2.1.a season. He also suggested that public art displays and/or temporary art installations could be incorporated into the landscaped areas. Board Member Borofka asked if the HVAC mechanical equipment would be located on the rooftop or in the mechanical rooms on the 1st floor. Mr. Tucker answered that there are currently no plans for rooftop equipment because of the restrictive height limit. However, the lower portion of the roof (south side) may be a good location for mechanical equipment, if needed. Mr. Wolfe said the Senior Center is seriously looking at using geothermal heat pumps that are internal and do not require exterior equipment. This type of equipment is more effective at warming and cooling buildings. Board Member Borofka asked if the applicant anticipates there will be venting louvres on the southern mechanical room. If so, how will the noise emanating from the mechanical room impact the Ebb Tide Condominiums? Mr. Tucker acknowledged that the design team has not studied this part of the plan yet, but they have acquired the services of an r acoustical engineer on the team to consider these types of issues. N co Board Member Borofka commented that while the curved building design looks nice, it will require the elimination of % some of the parking spaces. From a utilization standpoint, parking will be limited. Mr. Tucker explained that the bulkhead and beach restoration project do not impact parking one way or another since the parking is based on the 4; setback requirement. Mr. Lien advised that the bulkhead was one of the restoration projects identified in the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update, and doing the project in conjunction with the Community Center Project is a great opportunity. As per the current SMP, parking is not a preferred shoreline use and a 60-foot setback requirement from the E ordinary high water mark would apply. The updated SMP would allow the setback to be reduced to 40 feet, as long as cc access to the shoreline is provided. 13 4- Chair Guenther asked if any remediation will be required for the site. Ms. Knodell answered that none is anticipated at this time. The structural engineer is recommending either concrete or pin pilings that will go through a layer of sawdust to get the foundations to firm soil. Chair Guenther asked how the proposed plan fits into the City's goal of connecting the downtown to the waterfront. Mr. Lovell said the site design is intended to invite the public to come to the building to use the amenities that are provided both inside and out. He noted that a coffee shop is proposed under the stairway, which will be assessable from the walkway on the north side. He summarized that the building has been designed to be accessible to the public and to enhance access and use of the waterfront. Chair Guenther asked how much higher the ground floor of the building would be from street level due to the requirement to raise it above the flood plain. Mr. Lovell said the current elevation of the floodplain is at 12 feet above the ordinary high water mark, and the current walkway is also at 12 feet. The new FEMA guideline is set at 12 feet, plus an additional two feet is required to accommodate sea level rise. In theory, they should build the 1st floor at least 14 feet above the ordinary high water mark, and oceanography consultants have recommended that the 1" floor be at least 15 feet above the ordinary high water mark. That equates to three feet above where it is now and two feet higher than the current walkway. Chair Guenther agreed with Board Member Broadway that a loading zone needs to be incorporated into the site design. He suggested that space could be dedicated near the proposed dumpsters for this purpose. He also voiced concern that locating the mechanical room right next to the stage could be problematic. Board Member Strauss commented that perhaps the sidewalk to the back door could be wider to accommodate deliveries, as well. A wider hallway back towards the stage would also be appropriate, and there should be a door from the green room to the back walkway. Board Member Broadway said she appreciates that the air handling unit will be tucked away in the corner. However, she voiced concern that it will make a pretty tight intake and exhaust. Also, she asked if the applicant is anticipating Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 6, 2016 Page 6 of 9 Packet Pg. 8 2.1.a hoods in the commercial kitchen, and if so, where will the hoods be exhausted? Mr. Tucker agreed that is a good question that the design team has not yet figured out. Board Member Broadway asked if the proposed design can meet the energy code given all of the glazing that is proposed. Also, when looking at the window rhythm on the west elevation, there are a number of solid breaks between the windows in the elevation drawing, yet in another rendering is it solid glass with small mullions. Mr. Tucker explained that the plan for the 2nd floor has changed since the initial models were developed, and this disconnect will be corrected. Board Member Broadway commented that if the 1 st floor banquet room is divided into two smaller rooms, more exterior exit points will be needed. More exits directly to the exterior may also be needed on the south side of the building near the storage room. Mr. Tucker said the initial strategy was that there would be doors in the folding walls that divide the banquet room so people can go through rooms to get out. T 0 N Board Member Broadway referred to the proposed coffee kiosk that is proposed to be located under the stairway on the co north end of the building. The design team should pay attention to the rating of the stairway if the space below is going % to be occupied. Chair Guenther voiced concern about the difficulty of cleaning the west facade windows. He said he spoke to someone who manufactures window cleaning supplies and equipment and learned that the solar grills and louvres that project horizontally make it difficult to clean the upper windows. Mr. Tucker said one option to address this issue is to install folding canopies that can fold down in the event of a storm to protect the glass on the lst floor. This would also allow access to the 2nd story windows for cleaning purposes. Chair Guenther said another option would be to make the canopy a catwalk to provide accessibility to the upper windows. Vice Chair Walker referred to the estuary reclamation area and asked where high tide would come to on the site. Mr. Lien said the mean high water mark (or high tide) is about 11 feet and is near where the existing sea wall is located. Vice Chair Walker asked if there are specific requirements in order to mitigate and soften the sea wall and restore the area. Mr. Lien answered that the SMP does not bit about the beach access. An earlier plan had stairs all along the area and more hardscape, and the plan has since been revised to include more natural beach area and native plantings. Vice Chair Walker questioned if the same environmental goals could be accomplished while allowing the area to be accessible to the public. Mr. Wolfe commented that the plans before the Board are not the latest iteration. The more recent plans that were submitted to the State as part of a grant application in May incorporated opportunities for public access. For example, a ramp is provided at the far north to provide ADA access to the water. There will also be an opportunity to launch kayaks from this location. Vice Chair Walker commented that the area is a prime location, and it is important that the space can be used actively by all ages. He suggested that Don Morris Park in Chelan included a lot of shoreline work and provides a great example of how public space could be incorporated into the design. Board Member Strauss voiced concern that placing the new building within close proximity of the Ebb Tide Condominiums could create a good hiding place for graffiti, etc. A sidewalk would go from Railroad Avenue to the mechanical room door on the south side of the building. Perhaps it could be blocked off with a gate in this location to prevent through access or additional lighting could be provided to make the area safer. Mr. Wolfe agreed that this concern should be considered as the plans move forward. Board Member Strauss said she is glad that the design team is considering resiliency when identifying appropriate materials for the exterior of the building. She asked if any thought has been given to raising the floor of the mechanical room higher than 15 feet to keep it safe in the event of a flood. Mr. Tucker said they have not finalized plans for the mechanical system yet and this is an interesting idea to consider. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 6, 2016 Page 7 of 9 Packet Pg. 9 2.1.a Board Member Strauss said she was pleased to hear that the design team is working towards a LEED Silver rating, and she encouraged them to stretch further and obtain a LEED Gold rating. This is a community space and can become a great learning opportunity. The cisterns out front will provide a great example to the public of sustainable design, and she encouraged them to push the envelope even further. Mr. Wolfe explained that the Senior Center is required by funding sources to obtain at least a LEED Silver rating, but they are definitely striving for LEED Gold. Using a geothermal heating and cooling system, sustainable materials on the interior and exterior, and the building's close proximity to train, bus and ferry all increase the project's score. They plan to look at every possibility when it comes to achieving a high LEED score, and any suggestions from the Board would be helpful. Board Member Herr voiced concern that having 13-foot ceilings on the 2nd story may be out of scale with the smaller office spaces that are planned. Ms. Knodell explained that the ceiling height will not be equal on both floors. The ground floor will have a greater ceiling height than the 2nd floor. Board Member Herr asked if it would be possible to break up the roof height rather than having a consistent roof height throughout. Board Member Borofka suggested that r perhaps the taller ceiling height could be maintained for the banquet room on the west side of the ground floor, but the N east side could have a lower ceiling height and a lower roof line. Because the City allows for height to be averaged, co perhaps the height could be greater on the west side and lower on the east side. Mr. Lien clarified that height is % measured from the average grade, but that does not mean that a building can exceed the height limit in one area in exchange for being lower in another. Height is measured to the tallest point of a building. Board Member Herr asked if the City has any provisions for allowing taller buildings given that the adjacent building is significantly taller. For example, some jurisdictions allow a developer to average the height between the buildings on either side. Mr. Lien answered that the City does not have any provision of this type, and Mr. Lovell added that building height is a very E politically charged issue in Edmonds. Board Member Herr suggested that the applicant could use an open web truss design to keep the duct work enclosed ° with nothing exposed. The system could be run through the open webs and go up and down to serve both floors; ducts c in the ceiling for the lower level and ducts in the floor for the upper level. This approach saves a considerable cost a because the exposed ducts have to be pretty and interior ducts can use flexible materials rather than hard metal. It also Q will work towards gold status by keeping all of the duct work in a conditioned space. N CD Board Member Borofka inquired about the Senior Center's schedule for moving the project forward. Mr. Wolfe said V they must obtain preliminary design approval from the City Council and the SW must be approved by the State and 13 City before they can apply for the setback reduction from 60 to 40 feet. They must also obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, which will take a lot of time. Land use and environmental issues will be paramount over the next Q six to eight months. They will provide an update to the Board as the plan becomes more firm. op C a Mr. Wolfe reported that they have raised $3 million of the total $11 million required for the project. The Senior Center recently submitted a grant application and another will be submitted by August 5d'. Funding, as well as approval of the m SMP, will determine how fast the project moves forward. z Mr. Lien advised that the Department of Ecology issued conditional approval of the SMP, and it will go back to the City a Council next week. He hopes that the SMP can be finalized by the end of the summer. He emphasized that the Senior Center has not submitted an application yet. Because the City Council must approve the schematic design, he felt it would be appropriate for the Board to have early input, as well. No action is required other than the comments provided. Mr. Wolfe encouraged the Board Members to continue to review the design and submit their comments via email. PUBLIC HEARINGS - MAJOR PROJECTS: There were no public hearings. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 6, 2016 Page 8 of 9 Packet Pg. 10 2.1.a CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): There were no consolidated permit applications. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: Board Member Boroflca recalled that a question was raised at the last meeting relative to a budget for the Architectural Design Board to fund educational and training opportunities. Mr. Lien agreed to check to see if money has been dedicated for this purpose. He announced that there will be opportunities for Board Members to participate in Short Courses on Public Planning in the near future, and the events are free of charge. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: None of the Board Members provided comments during this portion of the meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 6,2016 Page 9 of 9 Packet Pg. 11 co T 0 N 3 n 6.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/7/2016 Madrona School Replacement Staff Lead: Mike Clugston, AICP Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Mike Clugston Background/History This is a new project for the Architectural Design Board (ADB) to review. Staff Recommendation Recommend approval to the Hearing Examiner with conditions. Narrative Edmonds School District has applied for land use permits needed to replace the existing Madrona School. The new school will include new parking and student drop-off as well as a new bus loop with extended queuing. Site utilities will be extended to serve the mechanical, electrical and plumbing needs of the new school. The staff report and associated attachments are enclosed for the Board's review. Design review is required for this project as indicated in Section 20.10.020.A of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Due to the location and scope of the project, general design review is required (ECDC 20.10.010.C) by the ADB using the requirements in ECDC 20.11. Findings must be made relative to the design criteria in ECDC 20.11.030, the urban design chapter of the Community Culture and Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and the zoning ordinance. Pursuant to ECDC 20.01, this design review is being consolidated with two conditional use permits (PLN20160028 and PLN20160029). The use permits are required because the proposed replacement facility has a design capacity in excess of 60,000 square feet (ECDC 17.100.050.G.2) and several features on the site are proposed to be between 25 feet and 35 feet in height (ECDC 17.100.050.1). Because only one public hearing is allowed per project, the Design Board will review the project at a public meeting and then make a recommendation about the project's design to the Hearing Examiner. The Examiner will then hold the public hearing where public testimony will be taken and the record created. He will then issue the final decision on the project's design as well as the conditional use permits; that decision is appealable to City Council. Attachments: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments Packet Pg. 12 E 0410 t CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov //)c. 1890 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION REPORT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Project: Madrona School Replacement File Number: PLN20160027 Date of Report: ,AAuu]�gWS4 1 016 Staff Contact: W l MikeClugston, AICP, Associate Planner ADB Meeting: Wednesday — September 7, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 I. PROJECT PROPOSAL According to the Edmonds School District, the proposal to construct a new Madrona School and demolish the existing approximately 86,500 square -foot school building and related improvements (2,500 square foot covered play area, covered walkways, parking areas, and playground equipment). The site encompasses approximately 41 acres, which also hosts the former Woodway Elementary School. The new facility would consist of five new buildings for classrooms and one for the entry, administration, the gym, cafeteria, kitchen, library, and the school's music and science programs. As part of the project, there would also be improved parking and bus and automobile circulation, and a sidewalk would be added to the south side of 236th Street SW between the school's two existing driveways. Significant new stormwater management facilities would be provided. The size of the school building would be approximately 80,000 square feet. The proposed school would have capacity for 650 students and 80 teachers and staff, serving grades K-8 at the same enrollment and staffing levels as the existing Madrona K-8 program. The primary entrance would continue to be accessed from 236th Street SW for students, staff, and visitors. The project would provide the same number of parking spaces that currently exist at the site (119), including five ADA spaces. Improvements to on -site circulation would include increased capacity for parent -vehicle and school -bus load/unload, which would provide additional spaces (up to 80 additional spaces) for evening and weekend event parking. The new school would have a 3,000 square foot covered play area and new play field where the existing school is located, and the existing track and field located in the southwestern 6.1.a Packet Pg. 13 6.1.a Madrona School Replacement PLN20160027 portion of the site would be elongated to meet current International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) design standards. In addition, a new play area and covered play area would be located in the center of the upgraded track and field. Ball fields on site could remain a shared use with the City of Edmonds. After land use and building permitting is complete, construction is anticipated to begin in the spring of 2017 and be completed by the fall of 2018 with occupancy by July 2018. II. FINDINGS, ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS A. PROCESS Design review is required for this project as indicated in Section 20.10.020.A of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Due to the location and scope of the project, general design review is required (ECDC 20.10.010.C) by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) using the requirements in ECDC 20.11. Findings must be made relative to the design criteria in ECDC 20.11.030, the urban design chapter of the Community Culture and Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and the zoning ordinance. Pursuant to ECDC 20.01, this design review is being consolidated with two conditional use permits (PLN20160028 and PLN20160029). The use permits are required because the proposed replacement facility has a design capacity in excess of 60,000 square feet (ECDC 17.100.050.G.2) and several features on the site are proposed to be between 25 feet and 35 feet in height (ECDC 17.100.050.1). Because only one public hearing is allowed per project, the Design Board will review the project at a public meeting and then make a recommendation about the project's design to the Hearing Examiner. The Examiner will then hold the public hearing where public testimony will be taken and the record created. He will then issue the final decision on the project's design as well as the conditional use permits; that decision is appealable to City Council. The following Attachments are included with this report: 1. Land use application 2. Project narrative 3. Description of clarifications by ESD 4. Aerial photo and photos of the existing frontage at 236th Street 5. Project plans, dated July 25, 2016, which include: Cover sheets (CUP-001 to CUP-003, updated CUP-002 was received August 23) Survey sheets (V-101 to V-116) Preliminary civil plans (C-110 and C-111) Landscape plans (L-100 and L-101) Architectural plans (A-101 to A-213) Electrical plans (E-101 and E-102) 6. SEPA MDNS and associated documentation 7. Public notice documentation for design review meeting Page 2 of 19 Packet Pg. 14 6.1.a Madrona School Replacement PLN20160027 8. Technical comments and correspondence 9. Wetland and Stream Delineation Report 10. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report 11. Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report (for feasibility of UIC wells for stormwater flow control) 12. Tree survey 13. Renderings and material spec sheets B. SETTING 1. Address: 9300 236th Street SW (Tax ID: 27033600404600). Former Woodway Elementary School is also on the parcel and is addressed as 9521 240th St. SW. 2. Zoning: Residential Single Family (RS-8) 3. Comprehensive Plan designation: Single Family Urban 1 4. Neighborhood: The school site is located in south Edmonds, near Firdale Village and the Westgate area, just west of Edmonds Way. It is surrounded by single and multi -family residential development (Attachment 4). 5. Environment: A critical area determination was recently completed for the site (CRA20160062) which identified steep slopes and wetlands on the parcel. These features are addressed in the critical area reports from Shannon and Wilson (Attachments 9 - 10). The site remains very well treed with broad stands of evergreen trees throughout the site. A tree survey was provided (Attachment 12). C. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposal is subject to the design guidance found in the 2015 Comprehensive Plan's Urban Design Element (pages 123 - 125). Refer to Attachment 13 for color renderings of the project and specification sheets for the proposed materials. Design Objectives for Site Design. The development of parking lots, pedestrian walkways and landscaping features is an integral part of how a building interacts with its site and its surrounding environment. Good design and site planning improves access by pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles, minimizes potential negative impacts to adjacent development, reinforces the character and activities within a district and builds a more cohesive and coherent physical environment. A.1 Vehicular Access. Reduce the numbers and width of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety. A.2 Layout of Parking. Locating buildings in proximity to the street to facilitate direct pedestrian access and help define the street edge. Parking should be placed to the side and rear. A.3 Connections On- and Offsite. Design site access and circulation within and between sites to encourage linkages for pedestrians, vehicles, and bicycles. Special attention should be paid to providing and improving connections to transit. Page 3 of 19 Packet Pg. 15 6.1.a Madrona School Replacement PLN20160027 A.4 Building Entry Location. Building entries should be configured to provide clear entry points to buildings, be oriented to pedestrian walkways/pathways, and support the overall intent of the streetscape environment. Space at the entry for gathering or seating is desirable for residential or mixed use buildings. A.5 Setbacks. Create and maintain the landscape and site characteristics of each neighborhood area and provide a common street frontage tying each site to its neighbor. Setbacks should be appropriate to the desired streetscape, providing for transition areas between public streets and private building entries where a variety of activities and amenities can occur. A.6 Open Space. For residential settings, create green spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and provide places for interaction, play, seating, and other activities. A.7 Building/Site Identity. Improve pedestrian access and way finding by providing variety in building forms, colors, materials and individuality of buildings. A.8 Weather Protection. Provide covered walkways and entries for pedestrian weather protection. A.9 Lighting. Provide adequate and appropriate illumination in all areas used by automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians — including building entries, walkways, parking areas, circulation areas and other open spaces — to support activity and security. A.10 Signage. Encourage signage that provides clear information and direction for properties and businesses while preventing the streetscape from becoming cluttered. Encourage the use of graphics and symbols in signage to support the city's emphasis on uniqueness and the arts. A.11 Site Utilities, Storage, Trash and Mechanical Systems. Minimize the noise, odor and visual impacts of utility systems using such features as landscaping, building forms, or integrated design. A.12 Integrating Site Features. Integrate natural landscape features and unique landforms — such as rocky outcroppings or significant trees — into site design whenever possible. A.13 Landscape Buffers. Use landscaping and/or other features such as fences to maintain privacy and create a visual barrier between incompatible uses. These buffering techniques should also be used to soften hard edges (such as the perimeters of parking lots) and reinforce pedestrian ways and circulation routes. Native plants and rain gardens should be promoted as alternatives to lawns and runoff retention areas. Applicant response on Site Design: The existing Madrona School fronts 236th Street SW with street access at two locations that serves the bus loop and the staff and parent parking. The Madrona School Replacement will be built to the south of the existing school and the existing parking will essentially remain in the same general location. At full build - Page 4 of 19 Packet Pg. 16 6.1.a Madrona School Replacement PLN20160027 out the front of the site will include parking and a bus loop and will also add the amenity of an open field that would have the potential to be used by the school and the community. The school -replacement project will retain the two existing driveways in their current locations; however, changes to internal site circulation will modify how those driveways are used. The existing western access driveway would be used for automobile (parent -vehicles, staff, and visitors) access and egress. Access and egress for school buses and a portion of staff parking would be consolidated at the existing eastern access driveway. Pedestrian access will be improved with an accessible route from 236th Street SW to the main entrance of the school. Being in a residential area, open, green spaces are the highlight of the site design with plenty of opportunities for play, community interaction and activities within a natural setting. Landscaping along with fences and architectural walls will be used for security, privacy, and as visual barriers to utilities, trash 1 recycling and service areas that may have negative visual impacts to the site. All mechanical systems will be enclosed and integrated into the building form. Site signage and lighting will be kept at a minimum but adequate level to provide proper illumination and wayfinding for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians along walkways, parking, and building entrances. All new landscaping (screening and foundation planting) will be a mixture of native or adaptive evergreen and deciduous shrubs and groundcover that provide interest and visual relief in all seasons. Existing buffers on all property lines are made up of a mature forest of native conifer and deciduous trees with a mix of native evergreen and deciduous understory shrubs and groundcover. These buffers will be protected and exceed Type IV Landscape Buffering Requirements per ECDC 20.13.030.D. Additionally, the existing mature forest along the 236th Street SW frontage exceeds the requirement for Street Trees per ECDC 20.13.020.K. Design Objectives for Building Form. Building height and modulation guidelines are essential to create diversity in building forms, minimize shadows cast by taller buildings upon the pedestrian areas and to ensure compliance with policies in the city's Comprehensive Plan. Protecting views from public parks and building entries as well as street views to the mountains and Puget Sound are an important part of Edmonds character and urban form. A.14 Building Form. Encourage new construction to avoid repetitive, monotonous building forms. A.15 Massing. Reduce the apparent bulk and mass of buildings by encouraging human scale elements in building design and/or by subdividing building masses vertically or horizontally. A.16 Roof Modulation. Use roof forms to help identify different programs or functional areas within the building and support differentiation of building form and massing. Roof design, in combination with wall modulation, can allow for additional light to enter buildings or pedestrian spaces. Page 5 of 19 Packet Pg. 17 6.1.a Madrona School Replacement PLN20160027 A.17 Wall Modulation. Variation in materials, decorative elements, or other features should be employed to support pedestrian scale environments and streetscapes, or to help break up large building masses to keep in scale with the surrounding environment. Applicant response on Building Form: The building form of the new school will engage the hill that separates the upper and lower plateau. By engaging the hill, the new building form integrates the existing topography into the new design and anchors the buildings to the site. The school program has been distributed on the site in a 1-story scheme that allows greater access to outdoor learning and daylight and at the same time respects the surrounding residential properties. The roofs are sloped in a playful, yet functional manner to help direct and capture rainwater. The roofs of the classrooms will direct water to various rain gardens. The most significant rain garden occupies the main north 1 south outdoor circulation spine. The rain gardens and bio-filtration of stormwater will present educational opportunities about the water cycle, conservation, and quality. The modulated roof forms also distinguish the classrooms from the administrative and more public uses of the school. Design Objectives for Building Facade. Building facade objectives ensure that the exterior of a building — the portion of a building that defines the character and visual appearance of a place — is of high quality and demonstrates the strong sense of place and integrity valued by the residents of the City of Edmonds. A.18 Building Facade Design. Encourage building fagades that reinforce the appearance and consistency of streetscape patterns while supporting diversity and identity in building design. A.19 Window Variety and Articulation. Use window size and placement to help define the scale and character of the building. Use the organization and combinations of window types to reinforce the streetscape character or to provide variation in a facade, as well as provide light and air to the building interior. A.20 Variation in Facade Materials. Employ variation in materials, colors or design elements on building fagades to help define the scale and style of the structure. Variation in facade materials can help reduce the apparent bulk of larger buildings while allowing variety and individuality of building design. Applicant response ❑n Building Facade: The facade design at the classrooms is focused around daylighting and access to outdoor teaching spaces. Daylighting is primarily achieved by integrating larger window openings along the north wall and by shaded windows along the south. Window placement also takes into account views of nature and considerations for security. Durable materials are proposed for the solid portions of the facade to withstand high levels of student activity without the need for replacement. Accents of color will be used to give identity to classrooms and outdoor teaching spaces. At public spaces within the building, larger, more expansive glazing is used to incorporate views of nature and to give a hierarchy to building entrances and spaces that are more Page 6 of 19 Packet Pg. 18 6.1.a Madrona School Replacement PLN20160027 accessible to the community. Three materials are proposed for the building fagade (in addition to glazing) to allow for a variation of color, texture, and scale. Staff Conclusion Staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the design guidance in the Comprehensive Plan for Site Design, Building Form, and Building Fagade. V APPLICABLE ZONING CODES Compliance with all codes will be verified through the review and approval of building and engineering permits and through field inspections. 1. ECDC 16.20 Single -Family Residential RS) a. Use. Primary schools like Madrona K-8 are primary permitted uses subject to the requirements of in the Community Facilities chapter in ECDC 17.100.050.G — R. Compliance with those requirements is discussed in the subsection below. b. Site development standards. Minimum Minimum Minimum Zone Street Side Rear Setback Setback Setback RS-8 25' 7.5' 15' Maximum Height 25' Maximum Structural Lot Coverage 35% Because this is a Community Facility, specific height and setback requirements apply as described in the following subsection. The structural lot coverage maximum of 35% does apply for buildings on the site. As can be seen on Sheet CUP-002 of Attachment 5 and the aerial photo in Attachment 4, the existing former Woodway Elementary buildings and the proposed Madrona buildings will cover less than the 35% allowed. 2. ECDC 17.100 Community Facilities As noted above, primary schools are subject to the requirements in ECDC 17.100.050.G — R G. Schools — Permitted Use. Schools shall be an allowed or conditional use as provided below. For purposes of this subsection "design capacity" shall be determined by reference to the applicable comprehensive plan capital facilities element. 1. Primary schools with a design capacity of not greater than 600 students and not more than 60,000 square feet of floor area shall be permitted as a permitted use in all zones. 2. Primary schools with a design capacity of greater than 600 students or more than 60,000 square feet of floor area shall be permitted as a conditional use in all zones. Page 7 of 19 Packet Pg. 19 6.1.a Madrona School Replacement PLN20160027 3. High schools shall be permitted as a conditional use in all zones. Per ECDC 21.90.008, Madrona K-8 is a primary school ["Primary schools" are schools used or dedicated for the education of students from preschool through eighth grade]. The proposed redevelopment will be approximately 80,000 sf and so a conditional use permit is required. PLN20160028 is consolidated with this design review. H. Schools — Setbacks. For purposes of this section, setback distance shall be measured from any building located upon the school site, except that accessory buildings and recreation structures (such as storage sheds, utility sheds, equipment storage sheds, ball field nets or backstops, bleachers, and similar structures) shall comply with the setback requirements of the underlying zone. As Measured From Residential Nonresidential Minimum Side: 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Rear: 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Front: 25 feet 25 feet As shown on Sheet CUP-002 of Attachment 5, the proposed redevelopment will meet the required setbacks. 1. Schools — Height. The maximum building height for schools shall not exceed the maximum height for the zone in which the school is located, except: 1. That in residential zones or any zone in which a structure 35 feet in height is not a permitted use, that portion of the structure or a separate structure that serves as an auditorium, gymnasium, or swimming pool, may be permitted to a maximum building height of 35 feet with a conditional use permit, and 2. Provided that the maximum building height for any other portion of the entire structure may be increased above the maximum(s) provided in this section, also subject to conditional use permit approval, to a maximum of 35 feet. All of the buildings and structures that are part of the redevelopment will be less than 25 feet in height except the gymnasium and flag pole, which will be between 30 and 35 feet tall (Attachments 2 & 3). Those features are the subject of the second conditional use permit consolidated with this design review (PLN20160029). J. Schools —Sidewalks. Sidewalks shall be provided along all street frontages to ensure safe walking paths for children walking to and from the school buildings and site. The requirement for off -site walking paths shall be reviewed on a site -specific basis as part of the applicable SEPA or site plan review. Proposed sidewalks along the south side of 236th Street frontage are shown on Sheet C-110 of Attachment 5 within a 30' strip of right-of-way proposed to be dedicated to the City. The sidewalks and other frontage improvements will be constructed to City standards during redevelopment and the dedication is a recommended condition of approval. Page 8 of 19 Packet Pg. 20 6.1.a Madrona School Replacement PLN20160027 In addition, east of the project site to Edmonds Way, the City of Edmonds is undertaking the Madrona Elementary Walkway Project. The project includes sidewalk, curb, gutter, drainage improvements, crosswalks, curb ramps and the like. The project website is: (http:llwebpubl.wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/Projects/Dashboard/ProjectDetaii.aspx?Pro lectld=8158&ProiectPhase=Delayed). The new sidewalks will be connected to the interior of the site as shown on Sheet L-100 of Attachment 5. K. Schools — Playgrounds and Playfields. The following standards shall apply to playgrounds and playfields, where provided: 1. Primary school playgrounds and playfields shall be located on -site. 2. High school playfields and sports fields may be located off -site; provided, that they are located reasonably near the school site and are accessible by sidewalks or other safe walking paths. 3. Where playgrounds or playfields are immediately adjacent to residential properties, they shall be adequately screened with a fixed wall or fencing at least six feet in height. 4. All playgrounds and playfields shall be landscaped in a manner consistent with the primary use of such areas and further in accordance with the landscaping standards contained in Chapter 20.12 ECDC. Madrona is a primary school and its playgrounds and playfields will be located on site (Sheets C-110 & C-111 of Attachment 5). The proposed play areas are internal to the site and will continue to be screened by the treed buffers on the exterior of the site. L. Schools — Portables. Portable classrooms are allowed where the applicant demonstrates by substantial evidence that additional space is necessary to accomplish the educational mission or objectives of the school in accordance with applicable state and federal statutes, regulations and guidelines. Portable units may encroach upon minimum setback requirements where the applicant demonstrates that suitable mitigation measures will provide adequate buffering to adjacent residential areas. Portable units that encroach upon minimum setback requirements shall require a conditional use permit, except that such portable classrooms may be allowed on an interim basis if required by exigent circumstances. No portable classrooms are proposed as part of this project. M. Schools — Parking. The following parking standards shall apply to schools: 1. Primary schools shall provide a minimum of 11 spaces for each 100 students as determined from the design capacity as determined in accordance with subsection H of this section. Primary schools shall designate non -dedicated parking areas on -site to accommodate "special event" parking on -site. 2. All on -site parking lots shall be screened from adjacent residential properties with a solid wall or sight -obscuring fence not less than six feet in height. Such walls or Page 9 of 19 Packet Pg. 21 6.1.a Madrona School Replacement PLN20160027 fences may be built progressively as the parking facilities are installed. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with ECDC 20.12.025. 3. High schools shall submit a transportation management plan for approval by the city. The plan shall address the following: traffic control, parking requirements and management, mitigation measures for overflow parking into adjoining residential areas, and traffic movement to the nearest arterial street. Madrona is a primary school which requires 11 parking spaces for each 100 students. The design capacity for the new school is proposed to be 650 students so 72 parking stalls are required. 119 stalls are proposed and an overflow area of 80 stalls is proposed to satisfy the 'special event' requirement (Sheets CUP-002 and C-100 of Attachment 5). The proposed parking areas are internal to the site and the existing trees surrounding the site will provide adequate screening. N. Orientation to Transportation Facilities. Primary schools may be located on non - arterial streets. High schools shall be located adjacent to or within 500 feet of a principal or minor arterial street. Madrona is located on a non -arterial street (236t" Street SW). O. Transit. High schools shall provide for at least one public transit stop or station. The transit stop or station shall include a turnout of suitable size and location to accommodate public buses. Madrona is a primary school so this requirement is not applicable. P. Signage. All signage shall be erected and maintained in compliance with Chapter 20.60 ECDC. Signage will be under separate permit. Governmental signs like those for schools are exempt from the requirements of the sign chapter except for applicable dimensional and placement standards (ECDC 20.60.095.A). Q. Secondary Uses. Any use otherwise allowed or conditionally permitted within the particular zone in which the school is located may be allowed or permitted as a secondary use; provided, that: 1. If the proposed secondary use is a conditional use in the zone in which the school is located, then a conditional use permit shall be required for such secondary use, and 2. If the proposed secondary use is allowed in the zone in which the school is located, but would cause significant adverse impacts that are in addition to or independent from the primary school use, then a conditional use permit shall be required. 3. A use shall be considered secondary only where the use is subordinate to the primary school use, with respect to at least two of the following criteria: a. The amount of space allocated to the use; Page 10 of 19 Packet Pg. 22 6.1.a Madrona School Replacement PLN20160027 b. The duration of use; or c. The number of people served or involved in the use. No secondary uses are proposed at this time. R. Governing Law. In the event that any provision of this section directly conflicts with any state or federal law or regulation, the provisions of such law or regulation shall control. The project is designed to meet all applicable laws. 3. ECDC 20.02 Development Project Permit Applications Edmonds School District applied for design review and two conditional use permits on June 9, 2016. The applications were forwarded to affected departments on June 21 and found to be technically complete on July 7. At that time, however, clarifications were requested on several elements and the applicant responded with a resubmittal on July 25. An updated Sheet CUP-002 of Attachment 5 was submitted on August 23. Color renderings and material specification sheets were submitted on August 29. 4. ECDC 20.03 Public Notice Requirements A "Notice of Application" was published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and the Library on July 21, 2016 (Attachment 6). Notices were also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. A "Notice of Public Meeting" for the Architectural Design Board was subsequently advertised in the same manner on August 23, 2016. No public comments have been received as of the date of this report. Public comment will again be requested as part of the public hearing process before the Hearing Examiner at a future date. 5. ECDC 20.11 General Design Review Criteria ECDC 20.11.030 lists the criteria for Building Design, Site Treatment, and Other Criteria that must be met by the proposal. A. ECDC 20.11.030.A. Building Design. No one architectural style is required. The building shall be designed to comply with the purposes of this chapter and to avoid conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. All elements of building design shall form an integrated development, harmonious in scale, line and mass. The following are included as elements of building design: 1. All exterior building components, including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets. The buildings are specifically designed to serve the needs of a K-8 student population (Attachments 2 & 3). 2. Colors, which should avoid excessive brilliance or brightness except where that would enhance the character of the area. No brilliant colors are proposed (Attachment 13). Page 11 of 19 Packet Pg. 23 6.1.a Madrona School Replacement PLN20160027 3. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, grounds or buildings should be screened from view from the street level. Trash and mechanical are shown near of the northeast corner of the building (Sheets A- 101, A-111 of Attachment 5. A condition will be added to require appropriate screening. 4. Long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided in order to comply with the purposes of this chapter and the design objectives of the comprehensive plan. This criterion is meant to describe the entire building. All elements of the design of a building including the massing, building forms, architectural details and finish materials contribute to whether or not a building is found to be long, massive, unbroken or monotonous. The building is not long, massive or monotonous — refer to subsection C, pages 5 and 6, for additional discussion of building form. As described in Attachments 2 and 3 and shown on Sheets A-212 and A-213 of Attachment 5, the school buildings are designed specifically to support Madrona's K-8 educational mission. 5. All signs should conform to the general design theme of the development. Signage will be under separate permit. As indicated on Sheets A-101 and E-101 of Attachment 5, an electronic reader board monument sign is envisioned near the west driveway entrance off of 236Ih Street. Such a sign would be appropriate for a school hosting many different programs and events. B. ECDC 20.11.030.8. Site Treatment. The existing character of the site and the nearby area should be the starting point for the design of the building and all site treatment. The following are elements of site treatment: 1. Grading, vegetation removal and other changes to the site shall be minimized where natural beauty exists. Large cut and fill and impervious surfaces should be avoided. The site redevelopment is designed to work with the existing topography, trees and critical area constraints (Sheets C-110 & C-111 of Attachment 5 and Attachments 9-12). As noted on the SEPA checklist, excavation and grading would be required for utility extension, construction of stormwater improvements, construction of the new school, and track and field improvements, totaling in 16,800 net cubic yards of export. Excavated material would consist of non-native fill/gravels and native soil. All excavated material would be hauled off site and disposed of at an approved offsite location. Approximately 6,200 cubic yards of imported gravel fill material would be required under proposed pavements and building slabs. Only those trees in poor health identified in the tree survey are proposed to be removed. 2. Landscape treatment shall be provided to enhance the building design and other site improvements. Page 12 of 19 Packet Pg. 24 6.1.a Madrona School Replacement PLN20160027 While the exterior of the site is well treed, landscape treatments are proposed throughout the interior of the site (Sheets L-100 & L-101 of Attachment 5). In addition to the access and parking areas on the northern half of the site, a natural play area is proposed within the existing track area southwest of the school that includes a variety of trees and vegetation. 3. Landscape treatment shall be provided to buffer the development from surrounding property where conflict may result, such as parking facilities near yard spaces, streets or residential units, and different building heights, design or color. The existing forested buffer screens nearly the entire site from surrounding development. 4. Landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrians or vehicles should be protected by curbing or similar devices. As indicated on Sheet C-110 of Attachment 5, the proposed landscaping is protected by curbs within the parking areas and drive aisles. 5. Service yards, and other areas where trash or litter may accumulate, shall be screened with planting or fences or walls which are compatible with natural materials. A service and loading area is proposed near the northeast corner of the school (Sheet C-111 of Attachment 5). The renderings (Attachment 13) show a fence of some type in that location but a condition requiring screening is proposed. 6. All screening should be effective in the winter as well as the summer. The existing forested buffer around the site contains a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs that provide year-round screening and interest. 7. Materials such as wood, brick, stone and gravel (as opposed to asphalt or concrete) may be substituted for planting in areas unsuitable for plant growth. No such areas are proposed. 8. Exterior lighting shall be the minimum necessary for safety and security. Excessive brightness shall be avoided. All lighting shall be low-rise and directed downward onto the site. Lighting standards and patterns shall be compatible with the overall design theme. The proposed light locations and patterns are compatible with the redeveloped school, parking, drive aisle, and pedestrian access areas. Light spill is kept to a minimum as a result (Sheets E-100 & E-102 of Attachment 5). C. ECDC 20.11.030.C. Other Criteria. 1. Community facilities and public or quasi -public improvements should not conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. The proposed school replacement project will not conflict with the existing or planned character of the area. Page 13 of 19 Packet Pg. 25 6.1.a Madrona School Replacement PLN20160027 2. Street furniture (including but not limited to benches, light standards, utility poles, newspaper stands, bus shelters, planters, traffic signs and signals, guardrails, rockeries, walls, mail boxes, fire hydrants and garbage cans) should be compatible with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. While frontage improvements are proposed along the south side of 236th Street, no new street furniture is proposed with this project so the appearance of the exterior of the existing site will be maintained. The sidewalk along the south side of 236th Street from the school to Edmonds Way is also being improved but that is a separate Public Works project. 6. ECDC 20.15A Environmental Review (SEPA) The scope of the redevelopment project required an environmental determination and the Edmonds School District acted as lead agency for SEPA review. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on June 17, 2016 (Attachment 6). According to the District, no comments or appeals were received. 7. ECDC 18.45 Land Cleariniz and Tree Cuttin According to ECDC 18.45.035, projects requiring design review by the ABD are exempt from the application and procedural requirements of the tree code except that ADB review of clearing proposals must be consistent with and apply the standards in ECDC 18.45. The applicant submitted a tree survey (Attachment 12) that identified 554 trees across the site, 32 of which are recommended for removal due to conditions leading to imminent failure. The removals are proposed to be cut to snags or stumps as recommended in the mitigation plan. Retained trees must also be protected in accordance with the arborist's report, which identifies standards that that meet or exceed those in ECDC 18.45.050.H. All site tree work should be completed in accordance with the arborist's report; a condition is proposed to this effect. No replanting for the removal of the 32 trees was offered. ECDC 18.45 does not require replanting, except in response to violations. Based on the fact that the exterior of the site is heavily treed, no tree replacement should be required at this time. New trees and landscaping are proposed as part of the associated landscaping improvements interior to the site as shown on Sheets L-100 & L-101 of Attachment 5 as is discussed below. 8. ECDC 20.13 Landscaping Requirements This chapter contains specific landscaping requirements for large development projects like the school. The ADB may interpret and modify the requirements as long as the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the design review chapter in ECDC 20.10.000. These purposes include: A. To encourage the realization and conservation of a desirable and aesthetic environment in the city of Edmonds; B. To encourage and promote development which features amenities and excellence in the form of variations of siting, types of structures and adaptation to and conservation of topography and other natural features; Page 14 of 19 Packet Pg. 26 6.1.a Madrona School Replacement PLN20160027 C. To encourage creative approaches to the use of land and related physical developments; D. To encourage the enhancement and preservation of land or building of unique or outstanding scenic or historical significance, E. To minimize incompatible and unsightly surroundings and visual blight which prevent orderly community development and reduce community property values. The existing trees on the exterior of the site meet or exceed the regular landscaping types that would otherwise be required and the ADB should consider interpreting the code in that context since the purposes of the chapter are otherwise met. It is illogical to remove healthy 60+ year old trees around the edges of the site in order to install code -compliant landscaping. For example, Type IV landscaping would typically be required along the 236th Street frontage per ECDC 20.13.030.D: Type IV landscaping is intended to provide visual relief where clear sight is desired to see signage or into adjacent space for safety concerns. 1. Trees shall be deciduous and planted 25 feet on center and the trunk shall be free of branches below six feet in height. 2. Plant materials which will cover the ground within three years, and which will not exceed three and one-half feet in height. In order to maintain the current appearance of the site from 236th Street and because the existing trees and landscaping meet or exceed the intent of the code in that location, no additional landscaping should be required along 236tn The same holds for landscaping along the other edges of the site. While Type I landscaping in ECDC 20.13.030.A would ordinarily be required along the west, south and east property lines, the existing trees and vegetation buffer the site sufficiently from the surrounding residential areas: Type I landscaping is intended to provide a very dense sight barrier to significantly separate uses and land use districts. 1. Two rows of evergreen trees, a minimum of 10 feet in height and planted at intervals of no greater than 20 feet on center. The trees must be backed by a sight -obscuring fence a minimum of five feet high or the required width of the planting area must be increased by 10 feet; and 2. Shrubs a minimum of three and one-half feet in height planted in an area at least five feet in width, and other plant materials, planted so that the ground will be covered within three years; 3. Alternatively, the trees and shrubs may be planted on an earthen berm at least 15 feet in width and an average of five feet high along its midline. Page 15 of 19 Packet Pg. 27 6.1.a Madrona School Replacement PLN20160027 Within the proposed parking lot and drive aisles, Type V landscaping is required and there are specific amounts of landscaping required and specific designs applicable to the planting areas. As shown on Sheet L-100 of Attachment 5, the proposed parking lot landscaping exceeds the area requirement. With 199 parking stalls proposed, at least 6,965 square feet of parking lot landscaping is required; 8,163 square feet is shown. The design of the Type V areas is intended to provide visual relief and shade in parking areas in accordance with ECDC 20.13.030.E.2: 2. Design. a. Each area of landscaping must contain at least 150 square feet of area and must be at least four feet in any direction exclusive of vehicle overhang. The area must contain at least one tree a minimum of six feet in height and with a minimum size of one and one-half inches in caliper if deciduous. The remaining ground area must be landscaped with plant materials, decorative mulch or unit pavers. b. A landscaped area must be placed at the interior ends of each parking row in a multiple lane parking area. This area must be at least four feet wide and must extend the length of the adjacent parking stall. c. Up to 100 percent of the trees proposed for the parking area may be deciduous. d. Bioswales integrated into parking lot designs are strongly encouraged. e. The minimum area per planter is 64 square feet. f. The maximum area per planter is 1,500 square feet for parking lots greater than 12,000 square feet. Planters shall be spread throughout the parking lot. g. Shade trees are required at the rate of a minimum of one per planter and/or one per 150 square feet of planter. While specific tree species are not shown on the proposed plans, the proposed parking lot landscaping design appears to meet most of the requirements in ECDC 20.13.030.E.2. It does not meet (f) in that the planters in the vehicular access areas are greater than 1,500 square feet. However, the intent of the code is met by the proposal because the landscaping design is logical given the access and parking needs of the school use. Bioswales are proposed throughout, shade trees are numerous, and the ends of the parking aisles are well landscaped. Finally, per ECDC 20.13.020.E, automatic irrigation is regularly required for newly landscaped areas in ADB-approved projects. It is recommended that the Board consider waiving this requirement to encourage the use of native, drought -tolerant species that would not need regular watering after the initial installation period. 9. ECDC 20.60 Sign Code No signage is proposed as part of this review. Per ECDC 20.10.020.B.6, signs that meet the standards of the sign code are exempt from design review and, as noted previously, Page 16 of 19 Packet Pg. 28 6.1.a Madrona School Replacement PLN20160027 governmental signs are exempt from the requirements of the sign code except for the appropriate dimensional and placement standards. 10. ECDC 23.40 Environmentally Critical Areas As mentioned previously, a critical area determination was recently completed for the site (CRA20160062) which identified steep slopes and wetlands on the parcel. These are addressed in reports specific to each of the critical areas (Attachments 9 -10). 11. ECDC 23.50 Wetlands The wetland report (Attachment 9) identified and delineated three wetlands on the project site. Two of the wetlands are on the slope southwest of the track as seen on Sheet CUP- 002 of Attachment 5. Wetlands A and C are less than 1,000 square feet and were categorized as Type IV wetlands with minimum 40 foot buffers. The report indicates that there is an existing trail system on the slope that allows human and pet access to the wetland. No additional disturbance is proposed in these areas as part of this project. The other wetland, Wetland B, is located in the ravine east of the project site. This wetland is categorized as Type III with a 60 foot buffer based on the habitat score of 4. There is also a 15 foot building setback required from the edge of the wetland buffers pursuant to ECDC 23.40.280. As can be seen on Sheet CUP-002 of Attachment 5, a portion of two classrooms and offices would encroach into the regularly required buffer and setback. This is not allowed. A condition of approval is recommended to require update of the wetland report to address buffer averaging /reduction and enhancement in ECDC 23.50.040 to ensure the proposal meets the requirements for development near wetlands. The School District has indicated that this will be addressed prior to the public hearing with the Hearing Examiner. 12. ECDC 23.80 Geologically Hazardous Areas The preliminary geotechnical engineering report (Attachment 10) describes the project and site conditions as well as general engineering recommendations for development. While the report indicates the school redevelopment is feasible from a geotechnical perspective, it does not address the development standards for work near geological hazards found in ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070 — a condition is recommended to require update of the report at the time of building permit application. Staff Conclusio Staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable zoning requirements, as conditioned, or meets the intent of the code as in the case of landscaping. Conditions are proposed as appropriate to ensure the development takes place in accordance with best practices for tree and critical area management. Compliance with the criteria will be reviewed again at building permit. E. TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Engineering Division evaluated the feasibility of the project relative to the Public Works Requirements in Title 18 ECDC and the Building Division and Fire District #1 did the same for Page 17 of 19 Packet Pg. 29 6.1.a Madrona School Replacement PLN20160027 the Building Codes in Title 19 ECDC. Each group found the project to be feasible and will confirm code compliance at the building permit stage of the development review process (Attachment 8). III. RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to ECDC 20.11.020, when recommending approval of proposed development applications, the ADB must find that the proposed development is consistent with the criteria listed in ECDC 20.11.030 (General Design Review), the Comprehensive Plan, and the zoning ordinance. Based on the findings, analysis, conclusions, and attachments with this report, staff recommends that the ADB RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the design for the proposed Madrona School Replacement under file number PLN20160027 with the following motion and recommended conditions of approval: THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPTS THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND FINDS THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICIES OF ECDC 20.10.000, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.11.030, AND ZONING REGULATIONS AND RECOMMENDS THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER APPROVE THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED MADRONA SCHOOL REPLACEMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Trees must be protected and removed in accordance with ECDC 18.45.050.H and the tree protection and mitigation guidelines found in Attachment 12, as amended. 2. Development must occur in accordance with the wetland code in ECDC 23.50. The wetland report (Attachment 9) must be updated to address how the proposed development meets the buffer averaging/reduction and enhancement requirements of ECDC 23.50.040. 3. Development must occur in accordance with the geologically hazardous areas code in ECDC 23.80. The geotechnical report (Attachment 10) must be updated to address specific elements of the proposed development relative to the standards in Sections 23.80.060 and 23.80.070. 4. Service yards, and other areas where trash or litter may accumulate, must be screened with planting or fences or walls which are compatible with natural materials. 5. The proposed landscaping shown on Sheets L-100 and L-101 of Attachment 5 meets the intent of Chapter 20.13 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Automatic irrigation should not be required. 6. A 30' right-of-way dedication along the south side of 236th Street SW is required in accordance with the City's Official Street Map. 7. Staff will verify compliance of the proposal with all relevant codes and land use permit conditions through review of building and engineering permits. Minor changes to the approved design may be approved by staff at the time of building permit without further design review by the Board as long as the design is substantially similar to that originally approved. Page 18 of 19 Packet Pg. 30 6.1.a Madrona School Replacement PLN20160027 IV. PARTIES OF RECORD Taine Wilton Edmonds School District 20420 68th Ave. W Lynnwood, WA 98036 Corrie Rosen Mahlum Architects 71 Columbia St., 4th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Page 19 of 19 Packet Pg. 31 6.1.a City of Edmonds Land Use Application t ARaHUCrURALDEsIGN REVIEW FL-" Z r E e,'`L' ❑ CoWRPHUNSWE PLAN AMHNDMENT joOO'CONDiTIoNAL USi? PE. wT ,i- Nu 16 0 0 7� - wr ❑ HOME OCCUPATION iL/V?_OtG©0'L(i-►` ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ LoTLINEADJ[ISTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL. DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ STREET VACATION L] REzONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER: W fly IF # ]ZONE K I''-' REC'D BY, FEE 5 3 6 . ( RECEmT # HEARING DATE ATTE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ODB ❑ CC e pr. EASE NOTE THATALL ixr, ommnoN CONTAINED TUTHW THE APPLICATIONISA PUBLIC RECORD c nnner.•nmv A nlrinFC.Q nn T.n1 ATlnN 9300 236.th Street SW PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) Madrona K-8 School PROPERTYOwNER Edmonds School District PHONE# 425.431.7172 ADDRESS_20420 68th Ave. W. Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 wiltont@edmonds.wednet.edu FAX# TAXACCOUNT# 27033600404600 SEC. 36 TWP. 27 RNG, 3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) See attached cover letter DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH .COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) - Conditional Use Permit #1: Area over 60,000 s.f. Conditional Use Permit#2: Gymnasium height above 25 feet. See attached cover letter APPLICANT Edmonds School District (Taine Wilton) _PHONE# 425.431.7172 ADDRESS 20420 68th Ave. W. Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 E-MAIL wiltont@edmonds.wednet.edu FAX# CONTACTPFR,SONIAGENT Mahlum Architects Corrie Rosen pHoNE# 206.441.4151 ADDRESS 71 Columbia Street, 4th Floor, Seattle, WA 98104 E-MAIL CRosen@MAHL.UKcom FAX# The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the applics6oh agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attomey's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant; his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits he cwith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that am authorized to file this application on the b the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DAB 05,11,2016 Property Owner's Authorization 1 Talne Willon , certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a tme and correct slaterrlent: I have authorized the above ApplicantlAgont I subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public ofticials and the staff of the City of Edmar subj]ect property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application. lr DATE 05.11.2016 Attachment 1 SIGNATURE OF OWNER P LN20160027 Revised on 8122112 Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. B - Land Use Application Pal Packet Pg. 32 6.1.a mahlum Project Name Madrona School Replacement Edmonds School District Project Address: 9300 236th Street SW, Edmonds, Washington 98020 Date: To: 16 May 2016 City of Edmonds Development Services Center 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Conditional Use Permit Criteria Statement Proposed Use: RrEECE#vEC JUN On 2,16 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CQIlNT60 The proposed development is a replacement 80,000 SF school for Madrona School. The site is zoned as Single Family Residential (RS-8). The new school will replace the existing Madrona School and will include new parking and student drop-off as well as a new bus loop with extended queuing. Site utilities will be extended to serve the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing needs of the new school. Conditional Use Floor Area ECDC 17.100.05 .2: Primary schools with a design capacity of greater than 600 students or more than 60,000 square feet of floor area shall be permitted as a conditional use in all zones. The proposed floor area is 80,000 sf. (The existing Madrona School is approximately 86,500 sf) ndi i nal Use Myrnnasiurn HeicihtECDC17.100.050.1.1: In residential zones or any zone in which a structure 35 feet in height is not a permitted use, that portion of the structure or a separate structure that serves as an auditorium, gymnasium, or swimming pool, may be permitted to a maximum building height of 35 feet with a conditional use permit and Provided that the maximum building height for any other portion of the entire structure may be increased above the maximum(s) provided in this section, also subject to conditional use permit approval, to a maximum of 35 feet. :: The proposed gymnasium height is 30 feet Attachment 2 P LN20160027 71 COLUMBIA, FLOOR 4, SEATTLE, WA 98104 1 1231 NW HOYT, SUITE 102 PORTLAND, OR 97209 1 MAHLUM ARCHIT Packet Pg. 33 6.1.a Designing within the Comprehensive Plan: Site: The existing Madrona School fronts 236th Street SW with street access at two locations that serves the bus loop and the staff and parent parking. The Madrona School Replacement will be built to the south of the existing school and the existing parking will essentially remain in the same general location. At full build -out the front of the site will include parking and a bus loop and will also add the amenity of an open field that would have the potential to be used by the school and the community. The school -replacement project will retain the two existing driveways in their current locations; however, changes to internal site circulation will modify how those driveways are used. The existing western access driveway would be used for automobile (parent -vehicles, staff, and visitors) access and egress. Access and egress for school buses and a portion of staff parking would be consolidated at the existing eastern access driveway. Pedestrian access will be improved with an accessible route from 236th Street SW to the main entrance of the school. Being in a residential area, open, green spaces are the highlight of the site design with plenty of opportunities for play, community interaction and activities within a natural setting. Landscaping along with fences and architectural walls will be used for security, privacy, and as visual barriers to utilities, trash / recycling and service areas that may have negative visual impacts to the site. All mechanical systems will be enclosed and integrated into the building form. Site signage and lighting will be kept at a minimum but adequate level to provide proper illumination and wayfinding for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians along walkways, parking, and building entrances. All new landscaping (screening and foundation planting) will be a mixture of native or adaptive evergreen and deciduous shrubs and groundcover that provide interest and visual relief in all seasons. Existing buffers on all property lines are made up of a mature forest of native conifer and deciduous trees with a mix of native evergreen and deciduous understory shrubs and groundcover. These buffers will be protected and exceed Type IV Landscape Buffering Requirements per ECDC 20.13.030.D. Additionally, the existing mature forest along the 236th Street SW frontage exceeds the requirement for Street Trees per ECDC 20.13.020.K. Building Form The building form of the new school will engage the hill that separates the upper and lower plateau. By engaging the hill, the new building form integrates the existing topography into the new design and anchors the buildings to the site. The school program has been distributed on the site in a 1-story scheme that allows greater access to outdoor learning and daylight and at the same time respects the surrounding residential properties. The roofs are sloped in a playful, yet functional manner to help direct and capture rainwater. The roofs of the classrooms will direct water to various rain gardens. The most significant rain garden occupies the main north / south outdoor circulation spine. The rain gardens and bio-filtration of stormwater will present educational opportunities about the water cycle, conservation, and quality. The modulated roof forms also distinguish the classrooms from the administrative and more public uses of the school. Building Fa4ade: The fa4ade design at the classrooms is focused around daylighting and access to outdoor teaching spaces. Daylighting is primarily achieved by integrating larger window openings along the north wall and by shaded windows along the south. Window placement also takes into account views of nature and considerations for security. Durable materials are proposed for the solid portions of the fa4ade to Packet Pg. 34 6.1.a withstand high levels of student activity without the need for replacement. Accents of color will be used to give identity to classrooms and outdoor teaching spaces. At public spaces within the building, larger, more expansive glazing is used to incorporate views of nature and to give a hierarchy to building entrances and spaces that are more accessible to the community. Three materials are proposed for the building facade (in addition to glazing) to allow for a variation of color, texture, and scale. Description of How the Project Meets Applicable Codes: Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) section 16.20.010.A.3 states that primary schools are a permitted primary use for RS-8 zoning but are subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 (G) through (R). The Madrona K-8 School will be over 60,000 SF and subject to a Conditional Use Permit. A review by the Architectural Design Board is also required since it is not exempt per ECDC 20.10.020.B The following subsections of ECDC 17.100.050 (G) through (R) would be met as follows: G: The 80,000 SF school is proposed as a Conditional Use H: The new Madrona K-8 School would not encroach the 25ft. setback requirement I: The targeted maximum building height is 30ft (35 ft allowed as Conditional Use) J: Sidewalks will be provided along street frontages K: All playgrounds and play fields will be located on site L: Future portable classrooms are proposed as part of the CUP; however, a separate building permit would be submitted at the time that portables would be required. M: Parking spaces are based on demand and exceed the 11 per 100 student requirement. "Special Event" parking has been provided in the site plan N: The Madrona K-8 School is located on a non -arterial street O: The Madrona K-8 School is considered a primary school. P: Signage will be designed to meet the sign code (ECDC 20.60) Q: There are not any "secondary uses' planned for this development R: The project shall be designed to meet governing laws Regards, G� Corrie Rosen Associate Principal cc Taine Wilton and Michael Nelson, Edmonds School District David Mount, Mahlum 160512 MA_ESD (Land Use Coverletter_draft - LH).docx Packet Pg. 35 6.1.a mahlum RECEWED JUL2 0' 2016 DEVELOPMENT SEMAGES MEMORANDUM OOONTE'9 Project Name: conditional Use Permit — Madrona Replacement School Project Address: 9300 2361h St SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Date: 25 July 2016 To: Mike Clugston, AICP City of Edmonds Planning Department 121 51h Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Please consider the following responses to the requested Conditional Use Permit clarifications: PLANNING: Sheet CUP-002: Please update the 'Legal Description'. Refer to sheet CUP-002 for the updated Legal Description 2 Monument Sign: On Sheet CUP-002, the proposed strategy under the Signage' heading should reference the fact that governmental signs are exempt from the requirements of the sign chapter per ECDC 20.60.095.A, except that the dimensional and placement standards of the BN zone would apply per ECDC 20.60.025. B.4. The maximum area for a freestanding sign in the BN zone is 24 sf while the maximum height is 14 feet. Up to an additional 12sf of area could be obtained through design review by the ADB per ECDC 20.60.015. B. The monument sign is subject to a separate building permit and is not in the scope of the subject design review. Refer to sheet A-101. 3 Light poles, backstops, and similar structures. A number of luminaires are proposed for the parking lot area as shown on Sheet E-102. It is assumed that at least some of these would be pole -mounted. These features could be a maximum of 25 feet in height; unless otherwise approved. If additional height was needed, these features could be added to the associated conditional use permit for height for the school (PLN20160029) and then be up to 35 feet in height per ECDC 17.100.050.1. If height above 35 feet was envisioned, a variance would be required. Light poles and backstops will not exceed 25 feet in height. The flag pole will be designed for 35ft maximum. Refer to Sheet L-101 and E-101. Elevation drawings of covered play have been added. The height of covered play will not exceed 25 feet. Refer to Sheet n-1 ni Attachment q. PLN2016002f 71 COLUMBIA, FLOOR 4, SEATTLE, WA 98104 1 1231 NW HOYT, 5UITE 102 PORTLAND, OR 97209 J MAHLU, Packet Pg. 36 6.1.a mahlum 4 Geotechnical report: It was noted in the associated wetland delineation report that Shannon £r Wilson will also be handling geotechnical work. Please submit a preliminary geotechnical report for the project prepared in accordance with ECDC 23.80 Shannon Er Wilson's preliminary geotechnical report is attached with this CUP response letter ENGINEERING: Please show the sidewalk proposed at the east end of the property that will be constructed as part of the City's 236th Capital Project. Label as such Refer to sheet L-100. 2 Please dimension all access and other roads, including the fire access areas (and portion of track to be used for the fire access) and the necked down area adjacent to the north end of the proposed "rain garden" where the drive splits to the south and to the west. Two way drive aisles are required to be a minimum of 24' in width Refer to Sheet L-100 and Sheet L-101 3 Dimension length of parking spaces to confirm space for parking and adequate road widths. Minimum standard parking stall dimensions 8.5 x 16.5. Some reduced width stalls (8.0 x 16.5) may be allowed if the requirements of Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.95.020 A.1.b can be met. If so, clearly label all full and reduced width spaces Refer to Sheet L-100 and L-101 4 Rain gardens are not a permitted stormwater mitigation option for large site projects (over 1 acre). Revise label if appropriate, or revise the stormwater mitigation to another system allowed under the 2005 DOE Stormwater Manual Volume V, Chapter 5 (if submittal for building permit will be after January 1st, use the 2014 Stormwater Manual). Confirm that the system size can still be accommodated within the area and will not require a change to the access road size or location. The label has been revised to say "Bioretention Planter". Bioretention planters are not proposed as a flow control (MR7) mitigation option. Bioretention planters are being designed as non -infiltrating facilities (with underdrain) to provide water quality for select PGIS areas only. Tributary area is less than one acre. Bioretention facilities are an approved BMP to provide runoff treatment per Section 4.6.3 (Table 4-3) in the Edmonds Stormwater Code Suppliment and will be designed to meet the requirements of the Low Impact Development (LID) Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound and the 2005 Western Washington DOE Manual. Packet Pg. 37 71 CO LUM6I A, FLOOR 4, SEAT7LE, WA 98104 1 1231 NW HOYT, SUITE 102 PORT LAND, OR 97209 1 MAHLUM ARCH 6.1.a FIRE: Please provide a stormwater report including soil infiltration testing information (see City Handout E72 D for complete infiltration report requirements) to verify feasibility of placement, size and type of stormwater systems proposed. Complete Storm Drainage Report is being developed and will be submitted with the upcoming Permit Set before the end of the year . The project geotechnical engineer, Shannon & Wilson, has been engaged to provide a Hydrogeologic Report, infiltration testing and Underground Injection Control (UIC) Well design recomendations to be used as the basis of KPFFs stormwater deisgn. A copy of the preliminary Hydrogeologic Report, dated 6/30/16, has been included with this submittal for working recomendations. In general, Runoff Treatment (MR6) and Flow Control (MR7) facilities will be designed per the 2005 Western Washington DOE manual as modified by the Edmonds Stormwater Code Supplement. The project will implement UIC Wells to meet MR7 and follow the 2006 DOE document titled "UIC Wells that Manage Stormwater" per Section 4.5.2 of the Edmonds Stormwater Code Suppliment. UIC well design and infiltration testing will be completed when building and site plan are finalized. Locate fire hydrants, FDC, Knox boxes, drivable surface, fire lane markings, fire access to buildings on west grade change. Refer to sheet A-101, A-111, C-110, and C-111. The following is a narrative outlining design changes that have occurred since the original CUP application. Site: Bus Loop: The bus loop has been enlarged to account for adequate bus circulation and queuing during peak use. 2 Building Footprint: The building footprint has been condensed in order to move the building footprint out of the grade change along the west, between the school and the track. 3 Entry Procession: The procession from the parking lot to the school entry has been modified to account for grading and the adjustment of the building footprint. 71 COLUMBIA, FLOOR 4, SEATTLE, WA 98104 1 1231 NW HOYT, SUITE 102 PORTLAND, OR 97209 1 MAHLUM ARC Packet Pg. 38 6.1.a mahlum Building: 1 Roof Slope: The direction and profile of the roof slope has been modified throughout the design. 2 Gymnasium Volume: The volume of the gymnasium is no longer expressed as a 'cube', but rather tucked into the overall roof form to be more inclusive in the design. 3 The fence that creates the secure perimeter of the school has been raised for additional security. The fence will include doors for courtyard egress and fire department access. Sincerely, MM Corrie Rosen Mahlum Architects Packet Pg. 39 71 COLUMBIA, FLOOR 4, SEATTLE, WA 98104 1 1231 NW HOYT, SUITE 102 PORTLAND, OR 97209 1 MAHLUM ARC 6.1.a Madrona School Replacement 9300 236th Street SW PLN20160027- PLN20160029 2012 Aerial Photo 1 inch = 750 feet N n Attachment 4 PLN20160027 Packet Pg. 40 lw 1 �-� ,� ��v err s a :_ •�.� ' .. - '� fifes._ • �' -51 a '7safmot r� • .. - - t- •� 6 - r+.' � ;R • � .fit' � ~i _� s �� Y At- _ ..�:!'i - f i f. .•�. _ ":ice •Y►� � !. � - Z 1 • � 5 y�, � /' '+FW _ _ y, Lam. 1 Y� •?]. 1' � 'ray ''� _1i. 7. �!0% •."' .�,r , .. �� � it �4 1 � - � �k, l � 1 ' a- 4 fj `Z �•. Crosswalk at 93rd and " 236th, looking east •r Ir. A Wt. Ilk SA, A ML . 4z� Rl �j - za, '... 101, A Sft "Wow Crosswalk at 93rd and 236th, looking west 411 .. .��`. . � :� jai �. i ti . f rF : ��!_: '�� -�• � : � - � 7- � i � r -t '■rr �s ��� � . .�'' _ -Fw.. �-'�-'°''j . � .14 ,� � .tf•� .'�'., {t a -� y� `'fA l c ' 4 A . m - 00 o' 4 .sa O ' 11 O O Q. MADRONA SCHOOL REPLACEMENT EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT 9300 236TH ST. SW, EDMONDS, WA 98020 T T I ITY MAP 4y �Q mm . 00 00 00 PROJECT DATA PROJECT THE NEW MADRONA SCHOOL WILL REPLACE DESCRIPTION: THE EXISTING SCHOOL RELATED SITE WORK WILL INCLUDE PARKING AND LOADING AREAS, m a h l u m TRACK, PLAYFIELDS, AND UTILITIES, THE EXISTING MADRONA WILL BE DEMOLISHED UPON COMPLETION OF THE NEW SCHOOL 71 COLUMBIA FLOOR A PROJECT 9300236TH ST. SW, EDMONDS, WA 98020 SlATTLa WA 9R104 ADDRESS ROO 441 4151 OFFICE - 11061441-0424 f" PARCEL NO: 27033600404600 1231 NW HOYT IUUTTE 102 PORTLAMO ON 97202 15031114.4031 OFFICE RELATED 1003) i24.0911 PAX PERMITS: MAHLUM ARCHITECTS INC DEFERRED SUBMITTALS: PROJECT TEAM DINNER EDMONOSSCHOOLOISTRICT 20420 60TH AVENUE WEST LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 98036 425.431 7166 OFFICE ' CONTACT: ED PETERS PETERSEQEDMONDSWEDNET,EDU `+Y^" OWNER PACE ENGINEERS CONSULTANT. 11255 KIRKUEND WAY, SUITE 300 SURVEYOR KIRKUNO, WA B0033 j 425.827-2014 OFFICE CONTACT: DAVE HUTLEY DAVEHOPACEENGRSCOM OWNER SHANNON B W1LSOµ INC. CONSULTANT: 400 NORTH 34TH STREET, SUITE 100 GEOTECHNICAL SEATTLE. WA BB103 ENGINEER 206 632 8020 OFFICE CONTACT: SARAH CORBIN SCC@SHANWILCOM OWNER ESA CONS ULTANT: 5309 SHILSHOLE AVENUE NW, SUITE 200 ENVIRONMENTAL SEATTLE,WA9B707 2057599650 OFFICE CONTACT: AARON BUOY ABOOYQESAASSOC COM ARCHITECT MAHLUM 71 COLUMBIA, SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WA 9B104 206 4414151 OFFICE CONTACT: DAVID MOUNT, PRINCIPAL DMOUNT@MAHLUM COM COST RIDER LEVETT BUCKNELL ESTIMATOR 1924- 18T AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR SEATTLE, WA 08121 206 223 2055 OFF] E CONTACT: STEVE KELLY STEVE KELLYOUS,RLB,COM LANDSCAPE CASCADE DESIGN COLLABORATIVE ARCHITECT 911 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 210 SEATTLE, WA 911104 20&62&9133 OFFICE CONTACT: HAS KINKEAD. PRINCIPAL KASQCASGADEDESIGNCOUAR DOM CML KPFF ENGINEER 1601 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 1600 SEATTLE, WA 98101 20EM5822 OFFICE CONTACT: THADDEUS EGGING PE THADDEUS EGGING@KPFF.COM STRUCTURAL COUGHLIN PORTER LUNDEEN ENGINEER 413 PINE STREET, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.3430460 OFF ICE CONTACT: CHRIS DUVALL. PE CHRISDOCPUNC DOM MECHANICAL METRIX ENGINEERS ENGINEER 11315W 7TH STREET, SUITE 110 RENTON, WA 90057 42S3362802 OFFICE CONTACT: BRADY BELL, PRINCIPAL BRADYB@METRIXENGCOM ELECTRICAL TRAVIS FITZMAURICE&ASSOCIATES ENGINEER 1200 WESTLAKE AVE NUEN SEATTLE, WA 98100 206 285 7228 OFFICE CONTACT: MIKE FITZMAURICE, PRINCIPAL MIKE@TRAVISFITZMAURICE COM ACOUSTICAL A3 ACOUSTICS, LLP ENGINEER 1455 NW LEARY WAY, SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WA 93107 2D6 409.51 83 OFFICE CONTACT: MOHAMED ALLAOUS M0HAMED@AA3ACOUSTICS COM FOOD SERVICE HALLIDAY ASSOCIATES MIN MNORWOOD STREET CAMAS, WA 911607 350 1134 6657 OFFICE CONTACT: LAURA BOURLAN0 LAURA@HAIDESIGNCOM SHEET RECIENED V•1� yJUL 252016 u= DEVELOPMENT SERVICE ! 7V'11: COUNTER ;S.yY :crnL Gnaw.., CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARDy��y��: IL10-S �—��� '!A1]41ft11�N11IIL8Wl — 07/25/2016 If 8559 GISiEREfl 4DAVI&OU N Edmonds SCHOOL DISTRICT u ,I.,• -n a AAd EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT MADRONASCHOOL REPLACEMENT 93DO 236TH ST. SW', EDMONDS, WA 960ZO 6.1.a MARK DATE —RIP N 1SRDED4TE 072512016 Issue CONDITIONAL USE PERMITI AR_ PRaEcr x0 DRAW&RN CHEC�Nm BAY: DRAWING Attachment 5 DATA PLN20160027 �1T1 L - �YEILLLs CUP-001 A.�1; �,aawL�e •- - - - 1 Packet Pg. 45 C a� ci Q 0 O t u R C p L C� C M r N rt+ N E s u M a+ M 3 0 R m a ti N 0 0 to 0 N Z J a r a� E t U w4 t. El W INTERRAnONASUILOWGCODEWITHIYHWMHNGS 8T PMENDMEMB 101E INN ORMPLUL PLUMBING COON, CHAPTER 5157 AD STATI ANITNOMENTS A 15 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, CHAPTER HI U 51 eT WAD N Id INTERNL ELECL FIRE CODE WITH WAIHINOION BTAid AM6NOMENiO N l I MTIOM6 ELECTRIC CURE 1DIe NDISC MMU STATEENERGYWOE CHPPfER 51-I WAC EDMCITY OF DMONDUNTYDEVELOPMANTCODE EHENSIEPLAN Cltt OF EOMONDB COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXw"N0 THEREFROM TART PORTION LYING WITHIN rNE 6WNDOIES DF NOS' STREET EW BE 6 AL90 6HE67V•101 SASNMSNTB OSBwMn0U9S PRIMARY NCHOOLS ME A PERMITTED PRIN USE PERMIT ACTUALUI! K•S SCHOOL, NEW CONSTRUCTION LOT .M! 1,756,601 SF 101E ACRESIAFTEA R 0 W ADIUSTMENTI Awl QG,I F AIUIE PRO OECD BUILDING BUILOINGARBALOTWVERAGE 291BACROS LOTCCVNMO! 2AM ACN101SSAC EKISTING We IMPERVIOUS fit AC OR 222156 BF SURFACE AREA PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SITE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA 111.15ESF SURFACE AREA @V1D1N4AREA OT COVERAOE�IRIMATI If TOTALPROPOBEDIMPERVIOUBBURFAC[AREA- 456121sF(1e%1 TN4FC101a SUILaFK1 AREA —ills- - 1DFFIe'R+wTADFN 10,!'ASHINDI -TM THE MMIMUM HEIGHT FOR R9 B COWING 1925 FEET A HEIGHT IN— TOA6 FEET IB PEHMIESA9LE WITH A COND111—WE PERMIT PROM. .BUILDING TO FAMPCf• so HCIONT LT11p�,� �N:iKI-sY.;lYk610 YBYlW STSM,Bf SilaAt,L ]B.D FROM ANVOTNGRPROPERTYUNE 24'O PROPOSED.—K AT 23ATN AT eN4' AL A PROPERri LINE 111'•1M ATE PMAIRTYLINE' 113•�T AT W PROPERTY LINE -LINITNR'AY0111013 FROP M "MANOR MIOP08EDEATERIMLMIITIWWBLCREAI WOLAREMR ILLOVEROFFTNE UGHTMO ERB ROUNDARAN PAAFD1GMakim WAO — "04 nH — REDUIIEBPARKINK!VALLA ECDC 11,1DB.SEEMI I I SPACES PER IN STUDINIS POROUS FWURS STUDENT CAPACITY NO.TUDBNI. CALCULATION PARKING QUANTITY REWIRED '291ALLS PROPO I—FAMGY PROMHOWAFF I PA ENI PARKING NIB STALLSO ABA) ■ KGL OVEPROW PARKING: NBPACES TOTAL EVENT POKING 1AS SPACES we OCBION lE75020.1I MEET INN SITE DESIGN CRITERIA ,MPOSN Brute., HE !LANDSCAPE DRAWING L•101 BUlpRDOlMOR E6tl070:'t1 - . -- '- — ' - MEET THE BUILDING DE81ON CRITERIA PROPOSIDBTRATIOY BEE ARGHITECTURM. GMWINGS "Li17E11:-AWIRu— -- 10010,10 UNDSCAPINLI S—L M—NEGUIR6MEN 19.E A= 201E➢N, EC W N 11025. ECDC N 11010 SEE UAND9CAPEL IIIY'MD4/11 �� nB�WAM11awY PlAIRI YnLYMW14Y NR1Y0CKNN0 PADAMLO BTIUTITT OAhW1AA[NIAA SgnaM[LA[MPI FRtlY iK[ACOL/ILICR}T OF fAO M1gN [0,yIEA11T/[KDC ]Nee DNA D.101FeRR.A. MO FlACLLFU.T p,AAAAAOS nYy - CIRRIARTEI YA[R [COCw Ng2{�1 - SCYC11 f00A0 ILiTi11ANOICloi BBNFAEa Wm1AAFAIMDnFArIDNaRMLMCC M[AE1,BL61G Cii!°nORriY. �iRLAANA 00 tl AA AMLKALI F11001BS ND} }n AFFA* Fw AFRCLM! uIIOATNVF SMARRSIB ESOC 11 N 64.! VIRTU A— EICAI RI T.keVNI. a Ad SIIFIRIS UIyML'IRW A ACCO U.N.02 114E FOLLOW INO ARE CLASSIFIED AS OMOCICALY HAZARDW B AR— ABROOKS HAZARD NOPN GREATAR THAN 1. B LANDSLICE MIARD: SLOPES BREAIfiR THAN Aft C SBIBMIO UA-D� AAEAB SUBIECT TO REVERE RISK OF DAMAGE M A RESULT CA MRIHWME•INWCED SHAKING, SLIWH FAILURE. SETTLEMENT NIL LIOUSFACTION, LAMML SPREADING OR BURFAC6 FAULTING REP ELNyGB[TB,A6C IT RRPOLOTISCMC4 R[PpAT Mh AN a0 PRIORITY AND HABITATS WILDLIFE AN OPT AN ASSOCIATED AREAS INCLINE PRIORITY SPECCSTATE AS FENTIAL HABITATS AND AREAS T5NW OR WITH STATE RED PRIORITY SPECIES AN OTHER. LY O6dI0RAlISD THREAfINBD OR ENDANGERED BPECIfiS AMONG bTHIRB DMAND STRA110 EDMWOB SCHOOL DISnICT MS COMM19SR3NED A CRITICAL AREAS REPORT TO ESTABLISH THEWSIM PRESENCE OF ANY WISTLODS OR FISH AND WILDLIFE KARIIAT CONSERVATION AR6AN THE WAIGNATION AND CAL€CORIFATION OF WETIANOB 19 SAEED ON THIS ANEIRR NNI SITE INVEBT1M110N DID NOT WDRAIE TTE PRESENCE OF ANY OTHER FISH AND WILDLIFE —TAT CONNRVAnaNAREAS 1 - IEIMADRONAVIMNO' 'BE A^F I 1 DE—TRU-SONI CDMPIr=TE . I — . r . • A. �_ + Sjnr... L —_ — — — — Y '�•• Cy .J, • r,- CATEGIXNYIIIWERANO WITHsaFT.eUEFER IS 1—CRITICALAR l - �__ _ ••e••• 1 BUFFERCOIU➢IKGRA E - -- A ' y I ' -_� � � 1 euddEOWFTIN,O �• I / -.- ! M• H N ' FFER AVERAG'NGNrt11 ENHANCEMENT B1 1 Y. 1 4 +--50]�ATWAREA6 , f T• , !' i • p aat IYI BLOPA ill BATH AVE.! 1 I •I I 1 I „ETLANOC 1 r1u•oA CR.-WY y I A 1 .1 '4 1 �IS 'ISA. E /1� NWItI� j ! A3 LAND USE DIAGRAM -CUP �i��ifff e WEl.O&!FFERWIDTHAVEMOMWITIIENHANCEMENTORWE DWIDnI REWCTION 1NRWON BUFFER ENHANCEMENT WILL N PPOPO6E0 TOR A PORTION OP THE TUFT SUFFER AT WIT—D S',AONO THE WEST INK, WHIRS THE SUFFER RATINGS BEYOND THE STYP SLOPE NEAR THB BUILDING FOOTPRINT, THE DISTRICT WILL COMMINION DEVELOPMENT OF A WETI.INO BUFFER BNWINCAMINT PUN FOR EITHER W NISH OPTIONS ICDC2350NOO ALLONSAMAICIA MI5PGRCENT RGDUCTUSNOFTHIWFFIP .61HNOINOON THE DEGREE CA UNAVdDAILE IMPACTS AND THIS AVAUBIUSY OF ON SITE WINMTION OPTIONS D16 DOTAICT MAY ALSO PURSUE A VARIANCE ANDOR EXPLORE WNOVATV[ MITIGATION OPPORTUNITIES w- 1AIA NIRCCO6rt Hi. '- •_._, - Q A. 1'� � m I•._ � �Ilr• D4 BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM -CUP — ,.IEGFORIM-w.sGFT. WFFI]1 WLw�'ZpANiER APC.ISA PROPOSEDWE MG AI A01H NG AC EAFYNA2 @b-C1 TM A50Ff. ea%)COFFER AT AT 6PdNTNCNIILS'— APFYA%INAIaYadFROM IXIERIDR FACEOF COSINNG 10 COFFER ECTIIRA.FN@IFIGOR MIIIY wo IICIIIAL F1T1LSH FIt3OR ELEVAI ION AVERAGEGNAOE 1E1 FT. MAX&DG1HIE—ROVE ABLA£tlUDE 1B5 FT. MAX l%DG FEIGHFALLIXNEDABOVEAVERAC£GRAOE^ 1N FT. ^MA SA-BIIRONGHEIGHTREIWffiN—FTREMARESA CgAIlIO4YUFAF—.IT 6.1.a mahlum 11 COLUMBIA I FLOOR 4 ■IATTLl WAfal04 120E1141-1151 OFFICE (2061 A11.0479 FAX 1231 NW HOYT I SUITE 102 PORTLAND OR 97209 1503122.1:4032 OFFICE (503122A09 TB FAX MAHLUM ARCHITECTS INC � EGISTERE� 0 11+1 GTON Edmonds SCHOOL DISTRICT E--, EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT MADRONASCHOOL REPLACEMENT 93M 236TH ST. SW, EDMONDS, WA MO Li RECEIVED AE. �� ,EFT. CwIDCALARFw _ 1 BUFFER COIOBNGEEIBACK — • P92 FLOC 23 W 2B0 AUG 23- 2016 C4 ENLARGED LAND USE DIAGRAM -CUP ENT SERVICES COUNT R l •t —� =�' LAND USE LEGEND �t' ��1 WETLAI.O ' _ •�r� WEIWJO BUFFER LR ........... CRITICAL —BUFF - COIUOIACSBEIMCN ENAUCAI _ 'RD11r p41TIAA: PSriTBlS EIwErc A __-_,. TOs[aYCF.FPEn olarAlc lyMbNO ORLIYFS Efl I �-s p.ami A4 AVERAGE GRADE DIAGRAM -CUP T > I .ti RIHI@ CUPOt ITfII IMANGATE III DATE CUPREl—E01 O IPTIM 07Y2512111 ISSUE: CONDITIONALUSEPERMITI ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD I'MAIINCUlk. iG15El7p} aum ras A LAND USE CODE REVIEW CUP-002 Packet Pg. 46 D 6.1.a mahlum of LYFRa a1Run B INrnFr. IMdwnF xh9d rrplTrw iasrslm 4n«ksxMd PSIMt WH li Apd 2016 rru ur.. 16033a ICeF HxPpp Mnikd ew• 3rrY0frl Crry of Fdmerk• PnppdkaMn M.nrnp .naw 44nr .aw.xmr• rwar Fun-54F FI. r.[wryw Ciq of [bneMs 31 SM AwN fawPl.w+Flw2c Ap•xo.u. Panmlanm Wl Gry of FtlmwkslcoFl ax-.e+9r.r�ra� IMCI COF PHnrarg tuf p ]ptl•gNal ZMA<CNBnox M ieHNUO CAFrgkemng Lxl BprwcA601 Dwldrg : FrlLl:tYJltLTihY Y} iw.wrOrA Teu� a4rj-.rLFYFi�IW.<er mFn PMxISN pr¢y.BFik3Rms9r mId RIJ eoF, whk Wwl Brcpl•rwe+w ron M4 1cr.�o wt N'MiralaM nl�>n w y�.MJ Ipn+er k.rr41].neu MwAlawervnHNr2rh lewn Cwpwrlttl MnW Rehbm lON Casuae Dupn cdab AresmNAeuNaoe 4•�ej. M Cohyl[CI fwrru [mmuclbn Tee MCBrym 0M1 xNnonrrwparz•non w FBB.y On 3m w01 Ma3rHm 1•.Fr.+ Tmnn RircnaH flW MMMn e»M PonnICRI AnhHm x••. r4 pawn rtun ypK:�rFfBatl6 uaXeaoxlAM-cam mahlum ..wA.ti 1 <.Awwn I MIh.I w.LI•M nn•Blp w•IIMNIw•d ark Mrl ton f, rvagAavrw.k Iw avxapirg / mn«ton IM1•r mry M plxna TM mr le wWinp ro wwRwnD m<Iwm on Mi. bwd m a Crnrul Ar.•s Mpn 3 N/nAN to mcWtlr oriemanirrp naN ua in wtiulau•nPan ralMd9nrmw pre 2o-IL 3005 gtltlrw Meu Ncour Nnm • mmrrpexen l«atlmbMl nrn •by ene•I lrmupe er ane duero �srwp nw He adaubml plu rperdb9 Me lwnupe imprwmenn M Me �wprenNrg u�wnVbNm Inem 03 ]4-0] e 1 r.mmm<w1mmINM Pow In�<r<k. r1—IN ROW bdrl • nWlr•d to M r<phc.d wnnln A POW writ`hM may MrrplautlanynMremme kfiwe the ROWk P Luku.px~Ira-B.I rrwl I I •nn rqx. r a• rp. •1 wprxL r••.I aq. reAWrem aeHp es Mayan rw'vrnu.d 3 pukbgw wM hen Lp campy wlcM1 M<TyprV Hrku p np rpwwmb, pr ECDC 2013 030 0 Xem xe Hn<ane nr<wnwMm aHr W Hmw,plry 4 xnovtl wBlMrMrx.d wnD nndHMsnpry ror wmbrNo RO—R um nrrranl wand H rpurM � an.ma Mn bro ntmxonwlls.re acnpnm< ma Mn M<n uwd rn coFvwRme r op<IM hin-IM PuDIHm. MliNiPUB ark puhH MuN9 w M..emim wMAln 3d mourns ana ugnirw Me entl d 50 ror wDnaml n amgabH xw •mkp•np.nY Pubke«ny. iw axowl.tl wiM nngAl pomp w 35' en gwk.d n M. %amine Commrnu w a•p FnpMprin`wdba 11—rare n b 5M•I Mw A[prswnk mlilbwetlm IN nwp sows ONw slon wwM M •Nwwd but canto mac IOM m Mrk I'— Ito rop el M newa<e wm<d m Ito waen • nhAllrw My)n•finle uwlw •s la worn nM. Mede Mauna le a<urmlm Me rmw cenuol rpulnmmla Mw a4 aPnrx. ararow • r•n we Mwmr. ton i,000 H of dv rlmlulFre4 in Yw lwlpuraM etl Fryww groHwea rarm•1 cluHrulron On IN ar•i mr[w LHmH p u•tl xSM srormwner g Ipa14aIG•A.yFM u. �rww de. CM R Pqr M[ mahlum •u.cpr. •.s. MuusdenryPnnsry3r0301m 030161 enMSMer lo33e 3o161 My DlAuan ry3lilOrN MrvYg Cwnmmn 103 ia30161 ..., e...•ar•, oL AA 3 alr .� ti.ed.re.nr v+^•1f+-�a'•s raurs.euW Yane.l ..a�.. tM A+krr.. mwmmk M xdsd r wdxn.Mti .r d.,m.. x.0 r awd.m mxMa . IN w.nw xn—• M. •mmwmu ro rer• nmru. raW «xN s ww.rw rr. w 4n n w r+rr em u m•w w mmx. •rrr�wn u A•w hyrax M.hNm p<nnW .n IN e•eof Me vraMn tn.d•Hmm10Mn•mr9 M unoop ma..pl.xratl rM apgn cmewas•ntl IN Fkaerp scrod for«•n in un dvrHd rnneuawn getnrwn bvHen ro Hn m —p m tl wnt 3 np kq rbaeh ro nu •M wnL b rp JutlMrare n0imengrug MCFlslory and i�IerY opuvn; art Mp pnlmminH[m m<xn�m Me-rwP«d.nni t9 SE•M Ih.'Irmer pHLHu'ro tMSW al Jrr am 011 Oand MMswne dna1M b MaNara XB repYxmmC a e txheauH niknr M•IHIII unt PplxwenrxMdndmmarowmler M•Mtl M. ulwol l urg<urg an HM aro prma wbmrtW mn'vemeer rs nwelrnp Itopn iM twhmrllal Ia tM of1M 3 poHcrMlmuary lot] wdHnemab M lkaN—lbnm rprmg x01] •n,•.a n n. bwldrN wAlMprinkMrtl Lf e Plrr kmkllT wkeunkn cheMptl9p bosh Me AegMlnrtMda X3 Mghr M1nilwiM l0' nHu xld;M1 uwnnm nM. n«Bm..apa. rr r•I.n widM b.ndH rMr. rsa s.Mack bmwen Ito ore Mu mtl Me MAdrg n9urrM c um9 du kn Nu drrmM•dNwnr lerM hu4dnpknoltlwrN p Nnq btaJon iaptal Mr'IYIpm'of tln Mll4n9, ora l:I .war me I I emma. i, nm. r<grdwmr Mor9n.xa u arec.lM M wwM wmA won Ito tum to fiM Mr MJ laweon a «nMl>Iolnx M.n npx.n <nl wmn gpNwA o0 0n Mllr Jn finrmva.Va M a�epubk tar du Ive e ed�ep Mre M1wrann ar..dpVa1< W <wnmccbn lM1e PMI be 1603241Cee Pn App hkeeng Atop d«v «r mahlum ,1 mry wnmM urn lms DOEmmual aM.nd,,-ii-Mr Wl2DOF manud rHl b• atlopntl m nnu•ry 20I1 II sebmmk h nunetl prwr Io rl, M• P.I. wNl M r.ww.tl uMx IN 3005 mF • prmuw rmprmxmmb x.rpuu.tl alma LM puM SHa or 336 Hanllrp Me pgxl ihw eW Wa: t r' Irn Impw•d Iram «nnrol nD5.0 c w.A,u at lh. driwn.5+ I AIVII wiuM•M wxlrynnecrpul.tl brLM mho evnluNrrs an ne rpw Vrctl for u W p OIY^'P rs Ne unxny ro Fdmm1- Immw IN al erh1 . of Etlmmar WDari�.Mywb cw.e bpaun M. wManmeinlrgn Me .w.P.m ...aH wd..vr•..nwPrrwr4lpwroHl w•• bin � rxa mrn ox•w µry rr p..xry .r n<I P.NAa eryCnrwyr.eerrSlTYlr.c.Cr�• MeI �mtorw•n1dHInsFYed•Ad.Ywlaro•«mr!cu •pwPndr14I.rprxp•y«Vrme.suamM•Me�tlwlr3wwMRx0+...nwwYnNaxn<tir3.gtl4MxAn�Nn •urawrs•wHqHlw.rmuti7PzFNmauKm�lmu•nµYdnI a.lw•tlrrbraysury HrlMwrAe rw)oqnwnywnrhar,.m,�mnm 8pre —bemrxr Ica ryM9, .1m12.s FSD Wrtl cmc4n.r ITM rompwlabrs b •bl9. wmu cmuimr MsinurvrttmcaA SF nume«Mr fi...ylrp and wmpmlc nky smwx won I.-I. .th.tlwonrmre Irpumt»Mcr <nly,3I—.y dNsedMeIto wm.mns I 1M1. uanng s.mu Ixd MMtlpwN spc. wiM • d.aorm IMI •Pmu oakl membu to moo eery Aspou vl it«s m Ito I.rpew«e rn yua carp br rpMrM M1 rrx<wra dnlpw LM�puw Mnirw relm amntlw oa as o. FOEow pp DrrnllaM/Conmmu wnfirmrtl cMr Mra cppkxare rpunetl lorwbmrrtel room • plxrAaasCwn NxHN HaI OSPI IUMirw Pr«n•101 lorml. M•tlmrMrs IN robuwbmrl-, ewn Ito CM IN of FtlmondsMMp 'fir Wp pkns, spwAcaOom and uMAnwns •tl for cM prgxc Mw Mm rawly r•xrwatl Ica aWr nm]]tnn.dr.uNww.+wr NA.p43 mahlum Iwpdw nm naa ro :pHer pow ro I Mkdumrownrn.I¢Amwbp.roawxa meM,xa fir.lame xwaur M.]nH Irr•F• .Id•rrr •rr•rn Mr•n a•1 F.IpAF•u•IMY • Wnmw in ..m.ur �M+Ir1rnN.E M'M MM• •o ••>rYYx~�Insr r•rr.w•3A•r p•nwaw HmNy al I cetlnuN M.nnrMlJy I, mIA aM rM ]Ors uMwwk c Mapp4•bk lorNw 2016 subniml e A3pame prmnwalMrparrw In a<meMon wrenund Hn M xrHe.a rn n W n px n.t AM MNwp mmr 0' wenreguH mprxrr aeJ.r rors.uuc Rad wn W page /Ne stepdn9/pw•IMs O«M1 asmn4 slant am MdrHn•d wbmiu• ' xeeparrMns xw p<�M • ~re. Pr I Hf a .ir fi. burHrp enm+a M My ammpA.ntwiM wa nm•y aorta 1 omectronCmlrtl ro M--dsMbl'uMrM[Murdrvla]5- -0235) k pumGp fikurr rM [af wR d4xroam Jar.brugxwyl Hr Io uMWtB anticro•Iw.1 IN emngmry Ir M NpU plumNn9 MR Wanton xm3I-MMnum Numbn o1 Plumbrg P.wn Nwtl 15Os 11I6 x01e1 5 xRRMao4Mtl in Un otle I Park lmlwniw C. to rpwttlenRuxen hw pa�S MM< wrA imP•cI Iw (S13Ns0 aHIM rpuntl d tlx npHumm-I l huY+9 s9uart taupe torn rM <auVg butlhp r.a M1rkuWN::::C:]I+rsch R«kY rpng a )m^A'mM va wwpr nm e rnrnrtso/Nntamr J»wmtllrrtiar anm < r• /»� arrr -rwXr+'r.a.l'p<ravrr �An mr eArnr enaw.ryww.nr rry rl1•«.•-p41• MCp»il it Ibrwmr a]n, m LB me p su p Lmnrin9 o«. oMaprm rr nHcntl a. ar or a w9h Me AruMnnprmarM rorwmrmug, 9reau wip lrley Man D An.hw.m 9rw<9rt«klx.pro,knm aomax.e aapwt<Iw.IW M WIN, t Fin rkrrpF+Wrnln xsn awN ra M[Y rl[•awn3NL Ir F.. ndlrr•. 1603N ICw Pn- Meem9 hung dwP ay]oll mahlum fin Hn.. emunuus LMr RN dms wh4eneally wmpywxlh Ito 20151BC end tkl--AnII •p -one tln tom MpHnr wHlnr h. I. oal.arany •tltlrnrM ark rs wnorgmc upon IrMI nWw wmmmn, pYn Wq o IN prgx]I.MMMrr IN dim-q tFPH.ii, of ' Ar wbmlr Ms NIIx prior rapxnl 3 Xi Mn lNswn oat-, I., rocii,t. eM tlnwlrM d. .....tkI drr Hnn forIto airy Io nrnw,n wwltl n<b ro nNHu rM q«n. a Cwr<nrms Mole Mcloutlw ard.uomp.Mw wxhaNmr rurAmO Mr mWpu Aswrd+p mdlld. sown ue Iv M npkcetl wcM IN .vNs...t..I. r•ul c 1M1. Ms'g�.m neck a untllMrpummcn ariMM. pgwL mahlum •F+nHX 1W ii sM.a••rIN•w nsApa•maralarw.ra arxrN xavnnn AMXLYM M4,xm Frar.wu.HrN3w • TFFy34u.Prawd WrNrrw 4la.WrF'Px•.Pe3n ni rAaa••r•r.vn f•rnfenn.w•rY s•NrMnn vr3r MAH2UM n. R.....r Ju wwday. mrtR•.+• rrw. r.r FSD LeHMrw •.r.AYx,wn nn'v....rw•xr M.ra T rn•••'H pxpHa.ww µnWx.Hrry n4..Fm•r.. x. veHP. NpnlnB and lonlrq The pryptnpuirs a NPard Msgn rmmbY Ito ADB b Sa PSBIONQ I1d,N 1p a Meer.wmmnk<eadpmlma w<pnnuto9<IM., ana a.mxa M.r wy u3pM1.n = rpr.r.a:r m. AOB pw.n tl 1Msee lx roMtl RICKHR x.b"drx<nnasenool • {w f[Oct]t0O p5NHl Me wbl<cr we Mr35 rovlulbxAs hem.P 1 hudm Me I. IN bxkxg M9nlwaHMrne;mtlla 35'bul wM a Np. Me Miroug pxmh «y M pemlrtq ro a me.rmum al 35' xr4M n mrwrM M1om rM •nrp.InN of Ito uMmuMN soil Yrr �wkwmnN s am•JF4.s un«ra�rrn4 rr.wn•, R..-rrW WI.cl4. .M W •..n wrr.r5 w4r an rs wr^re•�wn m r wa.g am.•• • •....«�-u... �rn.4 F. my wlmMl pruDks.Ine Me Wrm weuM nptlro M• . rorVH Spr+lxs nnY M rprprb M pwubn drpnlip m thIM1roulpwre loou9e el porueln • rryw gwWe rw •anrwWrvcrirnu an«Hlrtl mM Me'pecW I'pWrpHHMrOrn FCOC Ii.....r,'Prim.rysdNM �• eMllwyMrrw pr4atnp NAY n•.s r.x He[nmrw•.y Mie ^.rwrvM vb rmeaAmr MIMad CN9+wn ro3la]OrI6A iNrpMwmx apltl M m<I m a num6n v/wma: 21 ucy rM bn«wm/m mmllew vw• aapm.r FMMnn Mr arKr!•id••drwy Dnr4aEww 'rwrw3•.•ry •ram Jlxwrwru w mr .n.a nFmp3,wP w ew. H.M Hr.,ry 8...,. w. prCrd mnr' wrDnp Aa. brm prevraH r pl xwnn.Nnargwpr npuvm.nv, rein ro feoC io W O3s B llm aa ereMerdr I Auprere slpnpmrnrsrpuiretl lorI.-g sr9Mpe ownbu4ron AMrYM A ut erY.Iw sgnp. MC sucetl Mar M1ew+l Mlp Me Mapn,IHm ndGpn wkrt M1rwirw 160324llw-a pMeeerg MwJ daw e9.axx mahlum 71 COLUMBIA 1 FLOOR 4 B RIII" I wA "ID.c 1206) 8414161 OFFICE 12061441:041.1 FAX 1411 nUY HOW I ISBFIL IQ Bo1FYiRMo OR 972" 150iI 224-4032 OFFICE (5031224-091B FAX MAHLUM ARCHITEUS INC 8559 REGiSTEREO —, l f4 OU GTON Edmonds SCHOOL DISTRICT — Hve enl l ea mkt,, —, di,I EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT MADRONASCHOOL REPLACEMENT 9300236TH ST SW, EDMONDS, WA 98020 MRRX DALE 060RIP1pN ISSUE GATE 0712512DI6 ISSUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD 2111 2o.1591300 0MIMB1L. rR S!R.CMAY 4 PRE -APPLICATION MEETING MINUTES CUP-003 Packet Pg. 47 19 6.1.a ff} END STANOATD conc M o IN III f T— I - _ er 8W I v- FNwAY I T T � -A— � � ix•.r35Y IH, b Mom 8T BW - r GRAPHIC SCALE r_ — — ,yB q xx xr IN IFE 101) it 1 3 8 — — \ RECORD LEGAL DESGRPTION: THE NORTNEAST ONE-ONA—Ft OF TIE SOIIn1EAST ONE-wNNER OF SECTION I 216 TOMRHIR 27 NDgYnI, RnNCE 3 EAST OF TIE tla viET¢ NEaNW N ISH C Ntt hSHINGTON. y L I • SKCTREEf SW 1HEREFRON 1NAT PORTION _MG NTIIN THE BNNINUMS CF 2HBn, I _ n' IuuI cacu REc ND aMmae _ TL 27033600404600 I NOTES. r— r— 7 y TA DATUIa xAD /T i I I — DAmu Nnw ae rnnceP Sm ON ON RTR OPS IA.—. CON —Be lD SITOIIW91 CWIII CONTROL POINT 25. INC THE FAST WARTET —1 OF SFCIId, ]6, I 14 9 4 , � _ OWNA N 27 NOR1N. RANG£ J EAST, YAM MID TIE NOIITEAST CNBER Oi THE RES. ME OR ES i,l IXSI� f14W NTC OIR(�plNq B9DNjf(S DR[4S 9Nf1<Ix1[ IFlT10. ' Y887H 8T 8W +? _ B[ fM' RIOa n17 B[9W'111a1 tl RI1911R1La T,aBNAaBPaB s/ia.'n+l NfNRdI AK BAsm FAST oBEnn'AYIOIac IAQII N aar ,fart >d YEaW��L^�EIwT t - + w TSB J — f MIDn ROCED (A) TNINIE SIT u611NMC STATI1 MaxTAINEO ro TIE M FACnNDFs SPECIFEAIXNS PIT Mhc t>t00. �Bg EIELO 1RhhEILSE FX(FIDNO REQMaNEN,S SET fpNN N �. � W3AC O THIS WAS PET NIHOIIT THE BENENT tl A 1111E gRgRf AND . ] - I f 15 + SHOW DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW ALL T731EN6. NOT THIS TOPOCRMHIC E GGU DPANNO ACO,MIf].Yr1 11�A�� OCp1E0 DURING THE CWgEE OF THIS SI,RLET'.SHOINN RON S NO Y UPON IrTRYA NN FRONDED UM OTERS ND RA¢ NEAR% INC r r 1 5 f N %G T hCWFACY ORSCOMPIETEN— COIIPAC d fNGfENS SN NETa ECY�C FORE AND LOCATION PRIOR LOCA TO CONSTRUCTIONSIOBAC81 LOCATE: UTILITY LOCATOR! BIl REFERENCES INSURANCE COMPANY CtlN11YE1D RCS-]I]]IB-NAI wTD CH K. 201D � � TUPOCRAPNIC SURVEY JOB NUMBER 15007 DATED 22//./2WOODTAY FTNEIITARY SCHOOLBY COTE OEBCN, 1 i 16 — Mlv r.. u.a r.w xlwa ooNvwcnm xAw.es wsm �llgrErs_ f + ABAAD r, P A,y uD IAlK1 ! A i 11 V11 tl dYdlJB aM1 IiM44:lON P SE AS MAPS ' I ]OCROADIEASEMENT Iy 03'A1'F Y Y! f f _ _ I` 40W eT 8W T T �— q- — PAGEINDEX l I + I IENB SihNOARD CONC MOH W/I-1/r BRASS DISK N CASE DOM O S' 12 7 2 13 8 3 14 9 4 15 s III I 1s 11 s 2 PORTION OF. -NE IA SE If., SECTION 31, T. 27 N„ R. 3F_ W.M. e enalcµc�-H 11255 gIYJNh Way, Suite 300 I MADRONA JR HGH SCHOOL wTc +nYxx46 r_ ae TOPOGRAFOR SURVEY PACVEtt NO 1546810 I- i YRlIPOAME IlZ,WAseoa7 Paz5sz7A.14Ir.azs.e275oaa K-8FqiN fBrD BOaF ]x''�"' EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT 0 MR T,1C f&WKAS PCR AMERICAN FOREST LNIAOT4(111 N Tr sERA7~1 Cr115BA*mIFINf IsrA9 — FaI 4YW-fIv SHETT�_OESr11 V-101 Packet Pg. 48 I j Who wka M'wn.17d *3 J 3 n1 zTDDDsoontaao 1 O rnnaR I Il I 270 IA I MNO nr Z F� . �urNAx INGE t 1 n� J0J cm,psW TL/ 2)OOD8001111500 1 PINE tl,EFN MLM, LLC cw, n) zrozxoDllzaoo ,I111�100R4 , 1 \ 1 111 ,La DO......0, rlraLY ,, � I I zrceD _ 1erwT•ITe r �,r / I i I I ' ym. zs•cEo �' vmM i r x r _ . — — _ _ . _ s D. ABP �- irr 1 AOVHOALT '.°ee me `` .m" awe i'%1 Ir•IW 1M• ICa[0. aswe °-� a� c _ " e p (w,n _ i•'Ctl. ME I owr tJ,,.. �� �- -------- - ---Ow )R zserH sr sw + it >) ,� 1 1 L.—�K -`'—_ F" • $ ¢ r FryE ern-Eu-e , •'^...-_ E r n pn-.Y �E a c R ,r - P .riJs l 0 1 VI. ' }i". 12'�olt [wY.K�• )TTf `.-- 'N N. laa r i"L ciY WR .--�fa. kk .p'A Ir u ' �]�. / I11 sr'arr� l9•l.[9 �yyy ni 2• Nj ` , 7 p RIM ,aa.Br R NY m+E. 'Ki''p�..r- j ` pl iF x }} { i Iz_ coxc OOl 44z3'• _ xulm rN .,A? .tt a +x6 me ee 1 �Y I�w 3r ,z cN ,e1-,aza carunrm.C-- x ��Q.•�L_- 1 +rr_� f r' rx •ems> vv s to ' +h\ eR-ofixi=laa.��v. r' •� * �IrMcalcziwl=<a2 A[ jnr ii R 7r �i _. • ^ �'a' ,� �l >;, ~�* _ IE Ir coxc IQ-2 r '+ "r 11M• D , - e2r ; 1, HS \ (Lv I.p e' .' rREE 0 J p,� tqperW >•a >a / iDF R. , \„°-+',0 '�:� y''��.y rr' u'.F� r ~ l r - rtl!C MT1FMa +I 1 1 • 5 RA Y `` ` l.S s 1 -- _• �y�y� l _ 8 l.ANY i11 •4' +'\ \ A FYI`,' + �`-...��_ T, 1.�'al.y1 !\ J •1F Tt ASPHPLi - DwYO rf' • �r 3:L,. - rwawElkrmn ,; • _ _ • r + 'rr-i�pe -i"` ``J 1•f,r� qrp�a- i ,�R I o 1 .1 e' _ IIa1F R1 ]11DE' A,11 rlSe ; F •�•••r.- ,`,' �'S---'--"�+' \',•;y '-'r� 1 1 1 IMREnLY MORtOs ` iI 1 nl oWcaWo.W,00 op . r P pu...Tt II A DAII q �.y o'.q ! r r r wN w 1 �ftz eoc xlac i ���..-._..� ---'- ^ / e•I�ri°r lAc � b •� Jar i{'�Well I �r r Ibr16, Pk 4-h is, z,- acxMF 'r anc _ [.�-• r. ��. nwle ,wx l ► ` IE+ r �' l r [vn-•H• Irc WI a cw.,lu ' ' F "•L ' - _ _mc - '{ ` 1 ' �" -"° — t _ ! _ AN n/ 0o500DDo000200 I �1 bIDD I _ fg rE + 0/ '+ + r+S� a ,• vc (j=„v.D l_ + UNIT, r I / ne ausnoe00000ii ' I 23621 uwrx nl eDD— oo LEGEbD PAGE 91]" ® wA wcs.,.a DW LUMNURE T 9 Ma�wol "•.. R. 1� �TYUNES S 12 7 /2 "YORANTMµIER METER a T¢EVATgV LDMfFR0U51REE w vudl Awift ul4 " IwIC PI[1! (EI 9 p — m/m) " .r Ea u+v r+nc 13 6 J o /uTurr P— Q ocuouous IPEE Iw7T KF" Ol�1 - =RUorenln uNruNE zo GRAPHIC SCALE F14 9 4 p p NERANCHOR 1RANBFGRMEA H DAiIA KPLO HFAO �' OWGNS NUMBER CH FNFARY UNDER E 20 DPI ® T DF FCH rLOwIItlNO CHERRY UNDER ROUND TPOWER—F N E5 Poem/'—P'ONE VAULT UNDERDRauNU rEIEPHONE NES 15 10 5 OXEN METER RI ®G nsi PIT LNAND FDA R w1LLOW �:,"..� NNDEROROUND CABIF ry NNEs _ FEET ) —ONE/IV RISER E I—D RAC AN BLACK COTTONWOOD �•^ ERHEADEllGROPNOWFIR D FIBER OPRC LANES 1 inch _ 20 ff m 5 VALVE CQ'VLPEiE Al CEOPR H h HENLOCK �� tl1�11KF� wwft- l 16 11 6 I>rP ® Al METER — — — — — — AIN LWK f£NCE Yd W plNN ,,nA IpIGL — — FFNCE -= PA Pu NnR AREA �C e06[ V M 1,10R p M IWOM —Q_ p—p_-. 11otp FDau. PORTION OR NE 1/k SE 1^ SECTION ,T-0, T. 27 ll• R 3 rlw • 178r6fY11EA efl7;7Mtl70a a.a my a His PROJECT NQ yla. IQ�EAd1W 98p] 7LM[ r _ xr TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY a ns7ur�eulr usmmu MADRONA JR HGH SCHOOL EAM FOR 15456.10 17NAN1 WA REM9D Is ARCHITECTS COMMENTS Ip-l6 MaF(PAC� � 11Ai RIB» o TREE TM I+ 05 Kk AvLWA" FmEsr Y.VIAgl.�ll L-70-T XM CMI�SWtWroI PIBRMng Survey K-8 ron BDDK rs.�a.nce EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT sHEEr_�DF�� `skr w Haw rz r• w kt•rw+a l�wwa)O'esv ora ry IGl1-wr V-102 I C Packet Pg. 49 it `r i r• ! f•A + 1 I ji AA'.P I 1 r i 1 ' ..; �.. rr i r r 1p r !r r ♦Ll I•$� ti r'' o 1 i cr w.e.B„�Q ai I 1 � F ?DEc I I O I � 1 ;� r R m 7 1 I ■ r n.w.Yvp, 'f '��'iD}rNl +I � I 1 r 1 R I r l fe „I..w .. • fP UNIT 1 CWC UNN 2 CR rrn � _ -------- fall, Wq fE wwi a'ptt "fir.`._..__ coNC wWt a ,' e5e i vA�.lKf ywr1-^r nJm6, 1.1•Y1er - CD T• \ � `, gFp 1 1,5•' i , • � LOxn�E rsp �cRmyTHIA v m5B14peppoaq • <DIIM _ +r QArfr,r � I Ap17 Y'� / i -"°— � � 1 � � _ `�.•' � ` pp ry � r OYn _„rl+' 1 '1 1 � � / � .�i-• 1 �1V o��ieo�o�Wo \23621 , I I ;DI � v aosDAeoamorm � DQIC nrli fi AUK%, � 1 eD,e r 1 I 1� Pur AREA , ecR i N �8 II ri _ - II 'O„ fC 1 r ; rl 17 \ /eY F Iy 1 ° f I 1 4 1l^1� i 1 1 I f , � L � 1 ( D ! 123704 BRUSH/ROODS 111 TI' ■ , -- TI � I � I RICeH9.eO cozo c -c D14{W 11 Dryft 4 ., ! i• IvnN- ! F�'�. ) I n1e , H wla waK L ulNa GOUT CWIFERWG TRFE 6 RED - lQcanw m,sn v4lr nsrarw A RED ALDER cF_Aut EP,n ® w � n. IGN O DE—OGE TREE ,A BI/E(V.III Mr. M[II �• LOiCN N E ®® uauNolcs (ss/sG> n�NCK�mr TR OW — ow uulEiE C1� Y ¢ TAG NUNBEft BIG LEAF NAPIE .T.p/w-RB>c . g1NG BF DOGI- RR E. BITTER CHERRY ]+.111A111'RI14=M AD row, Rµ CF GRAND FIR W CHERRY 1'QMR/IRQW.K A„ULT DPI ® DI x.ry�. y�y rsyAn FCH R-O—RC CNDRRY UNDERGROUND POWER MNES � _ ® �= nr - UNDEAGtWNO 1ElEPNONE DIES WEIUND FTAG KA 'iE110W C<DAR YALLOW - UNDERGROUND CABLE N LINES TELEPHWE P UNDERGROUND REM OPTIC UNES m AS VALVEm RISER a yQ yY�q� BUCK CGTTMINI]DO — PO— UNES C —CRETE OGWWD WESTERN HOCK fagf,IFSD Nl.,f, LIKE ® GAS METQt SPGG. - — — — - CHAIN IIHK FENCE UUR L — — PIANTERCl 1111 NAREA BIRpI M CM�QmI om dly, FENCE R U— D r D— WOOD RD ROOF GRAIN P 11255 rd.W d WBy. SuOD 300 y,•T y MGM, WA 9W33 p. 425 827 201411. 425 827 5013 �j dra REVISED BY ARCHITECTS COMMENTS S-IB-Ifi WR •_ _ .. ..�. ,nn mrr Ter. ulluRPRc PFR AMFRICAN FOREST MANAGMEN7 1-20-16 WRfI CrvillShuCWFBIIReRMIglSurvey m 'aDI IBu.Aff.pl +Y I a nfAN 4- ' •m nlr..w.rH r.qQ l 1 Isla I,ra, MADRONA JR HIGH SCHOO K-S ' ' I I � TABS g 1R.EaN TEf ooADesoomQml i I I I 1 II I e Ic r ar.= O— iG- 1 r � I i air BRusx/woWs � i� I � i l O 1 I JI Ty ooa5G.GGG. lye � A9A I PAGE SEX 12 7 2 13 8 GRAPHIC SCALE m p m DD 14 ( IN FEET) 15 10 5 1 inch = 20 fL 15 11 5 n e •n W PORTION OF: NE 1�;i SE 1�4, SECTION A T. 2711., 11. a L. w AeR a ,Dla PROJECT NO. L TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 15456.10 sRWIL. rEUA rRDT+'Rw FOR • e m """""'D EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT 9 EET �DF� pK I,li LWrFDL'r#a V-103 I C Packet Pg. 50 6.1.a 1 7 �a•� I {1r r 0ri ±, 'i i �I TV awses o°NS000zcD •E+ 1 r r +'1 I �� 99! Ark 7 �Q R f IOF ' r/ I 6PIIc •ai^. . i n'+PDa uN�r w a� • a rC M1,W r s-1 o� ini�aso r rr i i i nsw t e • ,' r J f i cap• - -Maw• ' z I ; np11 g r i ' r i rr 1 + 1 IASPHALT , I , ,.• iii/// AM y/F N ^liAtEL 15 �j' �B t•11.+3Q]1 � `ONC ] M1F �+'a f �e � 1 ;. I ` • � IF A Blw SPHALr ' '1.i� rfy-,hr! _•,I , 4 Iif,1 \ rL E i 1 ffi SHASS i 1 11 1 I I ! I / �• � 5\'; '�,,,- i ��� i r r m,c +ST.•wla i' i � � 1: r � i 4 i irlo ♦ n>.qe �� Ir i xpu i r r, + s y+f r � i� � I I IIL,dAlrxGDODIw M I `AAS ea DUR"'rp 1 '� enlspfcDaDs ,' i 1 1 ! cON " 5 '•'� a i I a i GRASS ' +• i i+ ' rp� 11 + I I i 1 ASPHALT ,` 5 i ! I r ; A ASPHALT=A •ICI ' f i; �� 1j' nr 7'•1 I 1 i ' i'I rF rIAr'%_ -«- --_ _-®.... may_....-•N'' ;'v_4 y.� 1 {r f! • r � r � FArr � � }SVV (NOT apex) 1 i i l,re./ �� -•,� n- D 6'PM=.s,.av +II>rl'11? 'f A I. ± _ 'E vc ' (E)_as2i 5 1 " yB-2 I I r ' 1 I 'l r T � I\ ',i+Iriiiir; M1' 'x"n''�Nians ;r;i'rj�liri 11 +A 1 n�cwo 'r a r�z 'u B-' I+i�trEi;r lr 1"'��1 1 i r'r ! II ..era w, '+ r + r r �f.;+ii i; y + �\ _ ro' ;"Fxr: 11 i i + I r 7I niwiwA` �• >u .Tmz`scowe 'Y / rlt+rrlr llr' 1 lr b 1 y \ .t +,l I rr r Wva- 1r11 _ �, Ir tlr� � rr j r r lI'�ir�ilir; �'.^ Avxu�*+daRAu ,� \\ ti � l' pop r j r'fil riiir, LEG vuvs p- spas uGxr cowEmous RiEE q - weRR uNES PAGE WEX ® IRRIGATIW CWRV0. DaD IL 1E LAPILEA, pROVERtt uWAxYsE O - -NNES b xn[5'A1/i+ DELL IWP mEE .E. WHITE BIRCH - — — � � � 12 7 2 MANr ® ® MANHIXE$ (55/SD) CYLII ROCKERY (, irr[ T16'IIE•Nta BLN BIG EEAF MARLE I.WWATERNLINE 13 8 3 S CB BOElAR AIxTAPY sENfi LINE ONFRN DM POLE • OF oWGUS FlR BCH BITTER RY G^giM DRNN BNE glufl �ic5avnnre tt HEAD cF rnANo FIR a aoHr�� cgWxo Powm uxes GRAPHIC SCALE Fl ® 6+1A 11,p1 WESIFAN RED CEDAR FCH M1 CHERRY 14 9 4 �E(,pJlp TEST PIT A —NO ABI-E TVEEINESS 0 NETER C IAD CEDAR W WL11 1S CNETLq FUc N MADPGNE CW BUCK COTLONNDOO h �VER�EOHEOp PP OILI—SRC FINES A.FC Es GAS MEIER pocxo0a N - —o— — a- AIN uNx CE cIN FEET LY llf+ll lM i4w. eW 0 UCE — —� —x— -E —C FEN 1 in h = 20 fl 16 11 6 •.A, n� ArkE M nwr�olw•R M]I—O--B—O— kkkg PO"M DF-NE 114, 3C 111, SECTICIN 36. 1. 27 N.- R 3 r- W.IM �Y€f lll6wArl4w,"Lile3B0 Wit ]xrri 1PH PRD.IEci Nd rxplcwLc wnR Kw &wALW rrw .+c TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY an Dus �1�_I Wd1 pa%u7�aulru�ex)wwx MADRONA JR HIGH SCHOOL aw,nn.rn.crvrav FOR 15450.10 rur [+le 51R11 r�ee T+le *��� P + +++ rcREsT Nuur,NE115 1-to-RS rrnl &I sm.walIR.m"i,IsDNBr K-S Im"'� rxrrxtir� EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT SHE- - — 5� -- SfY vIs— Ox - BY P 4IN�ur•waD+u1 Il1R B•D IlI 1]a%-]MLM V-104 Packet Pg. 51 Z5 '5d IOMOL'd A t,p W Sy S2 0 01 N 0 S 0 0 X cD ly l7 CD CD 3 90� A el du g 1deNa lOIH1S10 IOOHOS S4NOW03 9,¢sr.ubez aoos card A +nSIBul—ldIwrPL4SIsaD I -ruWW 191--oz-r Lm8mpwm c&WA ly,7A'J r aid sxMnN ovl nim oam^_^ •--..- S-N M!M 9l-9lff sir13nm]7 si73lWTHY xa 3a omi nxtuX OL 9544E tlO3 �01 " ' axa s IOOHOS HaJH !$ VNOHOVW COOS LZB'SZ6 a 14LOSlZ95Z6 d A3AHnS OHdVUDOdol rK-.' ommm'PP "N ON 103rO8d Gqt •t aYY br0 ODE e9nS'Aem P-rPDI SSZll 7Y m 3 £ 'tl ' N LZ '1 'Of NOLL035 7/5 95 'r/1 3Nd0 NOLLiIOd "N G !tl 31N3f WPM —W—P—n = K,al7 Olxa lyllPlaw nM a00A1a0a J1wtlIB aYld OaVL3N d 9 ll 9l Jaxv 3Jar"ndrvmo aanaes 1111d 11 1s31 !a< 'll OZ = 4°u! LN Dvd ® 3n�Vn sra vn un•n•rvxna - tl3153N lo,a rlra ®rda yW ( 133d NI) �,n iOaP/ OR�i4W aooMxou wine 3NaaarW auavd pr3N aa,aHlaas 7q Nf� W3xoxd3nl OL �bVi1pB IW-A Y1Qd r S'� Sl r�f�`a of MolIW arman ma xaus3v. — O HorIH n VXO-/aid sPrr agr4n, M J .ate b 6 bl a 31VJS OIHdVHO ar.r aaaG� _ Aamxa axAad3NJ wj warroaa `s x3ironrcrl•raw a £ 8 £ l Aaa3ip a3ule rpe au —a3a tea+ sao+dlxoJ 3wd aANo _ .w.n. al ma r xa3aJoa o 3HNVR 35 Haiq x IwIIN yaR N/1T/alY Bv. "" °B1xps (as/ssa; sW H3LVM Z L Z l 3 lm — — — — 33a1 srwnan3a Q r3as a3lrma rwuvn�° rods • xauvaa,N q 53Nn AVM-do-1-8 -� a altl Q� 3JNL NNn NrvHJ N a wWnl foal N1e>, �4VY X3�8 3JVd 9sixn 33w snoa3lNw 3aJna us COMM 9t-r m I11 1 1 , r!rEifi"rf j� •<'u 11 +rI'I r l +uu r+ � t ( — —lt- — _ — _ � 'rf; rrlr;l L t _ Ijrrir,=. IF lor dt ~ rI} --+:�� .1 I, Wrjri +I:f r II ✓f+_<. i 1 I I I If , , ., r �� J 1 r' f.' �`�� •►-°.d'a 41 +i r r; i;j ;• 1t,�I�I�I;'I l� �a.11 1 rr -Irda. If 1 ' ►xi7t" ! l T 1 ` i j � .Y i■ r ,rri'i t � � � +.,I. IR �"tl4Tvmsra llrr+r lj 1' i 11 1 R •„•A .` ac-ern+ i i /' l G �a ' irilr,y MI A3� �liiy��;'`rl 1 n rill+ rrlrr+;li''rI ` "If NI II �rl Sri--•z���— y Il+iilr'+il .WTI -.'r... � 'j{� I � Irliirrl 1 1 it ; to ;' i 1 • a I �'r!`I'frirl rr I r ' I +'41, IiF i:'�°s;1 l rl ,,' iI // •',+ se-e arr 1 i 'i `�. 1T �y --. r ' _ s I i + r i I; 'IJ l i ! T c-v rw it �]ll n 1�3Nn d4 r llfl! r+rri;r r lrlVl''rl"lr R A• ' ' nil ! t 1 1 % 1 lF—_ + , Irlrlir'I' r �r ti4. ` 1 - -- d---- ,l i R It�, { tiY, � _�_—_ j •iIR1 RjR;;; r / Mn Ir 11 i F '� i '• • t.,cr.Iylq'01m 1 - - ,,%=a[ r lr;r+rrirr;+ 1 r ' I' ♦ l'' 'rrrr 1 ! ;+prrlrlrljr 1 + f 1 r r•, Ir ' I ', \ ~• ' +` ; rII�}'rl I'il+If, rf 1 i I arrrr r r t 1 ' a#. I \ +riiir iFr; I .>n-T I r j li i .yrw i r r i� rf �'� \\ *"�d��r9 +lrl;rr I l 1 �+ ,�{ o l e, V9 { I II ; Il+i.'+iii +; i i i /+ 6sq I I .Lyra �� iii i i Ir 1 Irrii riri+� 1`, err+ {' r r ^ + IF I r 'a ' .1 do Ilp + r �11 YHQ ■ — r f` n i"!Yw. •�`J I•1�,, +�sz10 r , Bxusx/NVODS j � \, aRUsx/WOODS j �� ' ' , , BRusH�s l \\ I, 1 \♦ awf.e-ti � �yo auwruaePsr �, ', I 11 , i l I , + i e I , J F I .2 , £2 '1 I 49 I , r i 1 � i , ' r. ' 1 I \ O1vu W C0ZC (W78azcB ■ 2- CONC(E)-- ur`oot�i.tirti � - 5 / T 7�1.'�'. . , �� 240n[ ar aw x —�— _ r a COND �o°�:�:Q = o— r—r�� Ds bE,F R�>Z�,-s�`�or`� �c J r_ ._�±.. _- _���-9'...•' ' f 1 � r,---�-- � r � � •' � ` � ` -. _ �. ^[tf hCCCi�I.Rq �YK t n/52zo1,eonweioD' Y 9 , - .� 2z.11 - yr lCr _ a I4- n =a E tr ra:aiw.y.wN. s „•carc (b•'vAr z coiac (w)=azz a E Ir Odt [cI. t2' Ca+c (s)=<1J T _ - UCHT C VtNER aMFEAWS TREE 1W,2 cmrtN LINES 1 f FB' F'4C `p..aTi1 E 11E B' w (NE)-a2T9 ® UNE e n19o"+vL pp,rRflE DsD iuuwuRE Rr nlul,nr mla O c cuoRm wDER �RDPERN uNEs PAGE 6'IDEX A v I" �n µ,K a• Loc GNT-OF-WAY LINES owl r _ �Dr ElEVAnW pA PLAx,En ARu DEaus mm ,p may, wIE 11FY — — DI— 12 7 2 yj 1 A - ��°"cr(•7=rIST g ® uAAN'Fx"ae`s (ss/s0) f uuua0% w FTx o,rel 4, t m I w �L w wr uu,r — — TN EwoT IEE -j'S• _y ❑ CD � —my S '� M [ F DWIXAS nR B[H 81-1 CHERRY WER uNE powexAmun VOLE sroRY Dxuu uNE 13 B 3 M 27oneooweooD voxER mAr�i • svwnND v GRAND F1R cx WwRr - - c rTG(y PST sF uER tt ICR HEAo c PAUFt FC — UNDFn= D T uNEs lq q q GRAPHIC SCALE p E,�-• *ES.{L-J'+ 'PONER/RIEPHONE VAULT DPI ® DATA PLOT S1ERN RED CEDPR FCH FLOWFAING WFART UNOEAtltWND lF1IDHONE UNES lx pONER YEIFR TPI ® IESi PR "-' * mm UNDEACRWND W91£ N UNES 4 ' i UND HERCRWND - OPTC UNES 1$ LI/WK/„' aSA g WERAND FLAG MD C NADRWE KML {OTPoW000 �Ap° O EAD P— UNES 1 I m 1 1s M[Trn P9el,e aeaLil(a RUTEp FMm = %_—Y—_'— —_ V6B\EAD unutt uNEs (CIN FEET) SP CE p N UKK iFNCE l fi 11 t h = 20 It M E FENCE A 13 B BRUCHL Lrl P[T .194 Prp1 0� D—O—D— WODO FENCE F',cAJf PORTION OF. NE 1/4. SE 1/4. SECTION ]& T. 27 9. R 3 E.. W.M- lyr pwE 1.Ii�1�Yf� gtl11 NR M�iR �Le PRO.UT NO ::� un/cAt� ,> TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY v+ OW14, , Qm"°a MADRONA JR HIC�i SCHOOL S "/wow FOR 75458.70 OYB REVISED BY ARCHITECTS COMMENTS 5-t B-1 Wi PRAT 1A0➢ WE T.AG NLUiREBS PER AMERICAN FOREST MANAGMEN I-zr1 MW M CmI SWOWmIIPIBnnhlgIStxvey K_e L+LLs rp°' ����' EDMOND3 SCHOOL DISTRICT sHEErOF e �YS PI,14T G![ LWI JN � ,cn,e,tiwr mID tlYO fr,L 13LM-tS+ V-106 C a� ci Q 0 O t V U7 m C O C� C M N N s u t 3 0 fC N m a N O O to r O N Z J a U R I C Packet Pg. 53 HSE / 8434 ^ T - . ~ .--. ~ ^ � I mu=alC < n,00µ,RGGG�R� � ,�)-�=,s , It- I ARH 6 UNUA UUNAN PAUL k UEAN Ml— SHALr !: Nn/ nozTs°OMzsoo's I••+ - \ 11 sE, saw P° 4L , 4Vs sG ten/ zr 0011la°G I lANErTE LEE III rbur+.• Hai f Tv noi.T�ea Nlizioo _ xi (x�-.w e_ [4me ° E a a�w.`�r oar. n/ Bo.aTGccoOlRoo \ bm RM A • /rna.r 4E/w),a}e zl TL/ zTouc°o,lzAVHAIr 44 -• - u.,Myl , f KE4 ....c.r •Ta7:r uli n,c°�•—..--.._.�. .r—.,.r.—.—T—• �r`vn unr f+re 1"�.�rm x � i• 1 ` ! I i • -- It pr r ! p� ' r • T - +�^i 6sn_�_ - _ 'r--r—.i_ 'Is + i �--- r t! i xii.r n4u -•�- - - '� - 1 I del f5 rsao 4 c �'a o + � i � � e it ca va44rc i •� ;�' � � ' ili, �••"S yx-� � 2's°'S 1! ' i 1 ' ' 1 •� - sro( ui ' T X ++ g I �l li .� �'! oP/. i / i j i 7 / \ i ,00. / 1 ��. l,Irm yr J 1' sx+4L a>•\p� I r I/� 1n 1 eR '� 1 ' a ^' S+ ) I ' Y� ry '7s I � GEHgT'AOBs _ � 1 � si nO Y .bF NI Ib i i /�i t � i = i i I � \ ' m. I P r �f -'� • 1 i .•� /`�� r ra.-� I ° 9i i° ,� "/^n�' '+ .yyiA,-/�v I ' 1 j 1 \� '� LL/ / r 11 , ~�+-`,• !r r`W 1f'p I ' is 20 !� I • 4 b� V I j e 2 I 1 \ + y rl )T'',rT f ^.r• ! r �f 1 "` y # Ra �Ts j 1 f 2 7 I ,r�r , f� �1 . r /..+ F� 1 it r ' t i \ \ �� ,j'4„• f r �/ r` • �•'�' �1^ f. �•`�.>.u. mw r.Es I + i •-- •�± '� rH I I ' ` 'i i i � \ + \ r r I ` r .•r'` Z `.n__ ..x- '. � � �- i �r u.c �S.�.I MeAlt I }; I`, I � I 'i � i \I s\ �+-' "+� �`\\ �F .'IJ AAil�Ir�il �' •' �!/J 5+y +rS�Y r•`" • �� +:=�. + zs"oF / i +� +' n ■ AmHu `,I - = `^ T I P I Ir11 I� 1t, >r!A_ ,^ /�'r+�i'+rra I I -co�am coxc wAlx . -�-�• � - •^yY7 S I 11' ; y ! `4 1 Ae'NALT s� f !' 1 !! ! ! r t ) ' ' I I 1!' f d i + 1 AvxALT 1 f +Y , ! r ' ; 1 / 1 f i! o 11 li i r tit ' Pf 7g �I P.A f Ar I I J L 4 ! 1 �1 �' ^�'f9•N.•, I i JJ1 ! •I/� r +,4 1 i 4• I R r PMC [R)^r/e.0 Iti'ffQ} 1 4 �! ' 'r f4 LE�RNrc+,wK per( s,REEr "E-T ^"� °� M P" a tt N�xE PAGE fDEX 8 al/NORSp1• fO1TIR LHp wMINAIRE E° AWER RIGHT-GF-WAY°t1Nfs HTORANT , flLWlxri O BEaRUWs TREE Wg EUROPEAN NNITE BIRCH - - LOT 1-1- a 12 2 UN_ ® ® MANHOIES (GS/SU) LOX 1 , TREE TAG NU1.®I BUA BIG IFAF NAPLE — ROW LINE CSLQ ROatERY U, OWGUS FlR KH BITTER CHERRY SANITARY SEWER LINE 13 B 3 OWER �RU�tt POLE : 9 RIONIIIt HEAD E— GUT GF GRANU FlR W CHERRY STORM °RAIN LINE I" POTRANSFmMER ® °ATA PLar uuoFncrtouNO TPOW�x au+NEEUN� GRAPHIC SCALE PowfR PHONE VAULT OPi •�� °� A'!>JM euIcocTTw,WnRCO - zo 14 9 4 R TPI ® TEST PIT _ P ISI PAanc MAw+oxE�� crw.� N. 15 40 5 n o TET �C/TV RISER E CWEfUNFuc PACIHC DGGWGW WESTERN HEMLOCK o+ERMEM unum MNUESnG 1 nclh FE.' fL ® GAS xEIEH E LAUREL SPRUCECHAIN DNH FENCE 16 11 6 W PLAN-MErrAPU � i FINE N1TH I4tl4GtlA Ni1C IR[.. _ tl _Q�=Q�� Y.00D —E sw RLTOF DRAIN + PORTION OF: NE 4/4. •l I W IL 1125510rldand Way, Suite 3D) �.r >; TqqPFI�XCT MD. ADX4P—V tcduand. WAseo33 r.Ir TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY R,A"I N18 REVISED RY ARCHIIECTs OOIuIEem y-TS-1 p.425, 27 201411. 425 827.5043 MADRONA JK 8GH SCHOOL „`2Y ,EaM tlsrTcR�w FOR 16459.10 ur CW 04 rkm iAc HuvKFm PEr1 f.,IFJBCA/1 fO4 m w 4cu[m I-2o-WW 1 H *� rlV cNl—�I � I Pla..I g �Ry °°0` ' %. EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT SHEET--j—OF� V-107 I C Packet Pg. 54 6.1.a 1 f r + 1 srYrc+W.rn r. li' } 1 i Y - Y J , �' + + f B • S 1 1` nFr Ll f f 1 i ' V.'.11'. 1 1. 4 �' • -' 1 rx, I 4n� 1 1 ' I' r r+ i II' I r Y L .r I ►A I r �2 ;+ f I+; 4 r i' $ UNIT r iE ,'nrQ�.�tir / If' ' c.a 1 M1, CA Ai.pam '` /r / / • 1 1 s� I pi • Tye iKi 1 Irr f7 r / 1 pin y 1 ! I' ft 1 r 1 / 1 i ti I r 1 i r r r ti 1i y i `, t r I 1 a y i ro 1 ac 1 i { y 1 10 i Y� .• 4vi..i°"`i r i i a i \ �+ I6 � / .1�a'" •+ � i +f' � r i J % r PA ki r / � � r it y \ y I; na, 11 � r� � r � .q r •':. ni�w i � i 1 r s i � 1 COK � � wrrIT It {g 1 r ' riAl f f T(y ff j .1s /woods 11 , a 1 + f e I ;pql. I ' ' ; 14rY � 1 ly r1 G I r ,• + y� is ,ylj bi rl 1 r r i��.�w,�a +. r I ' I �r i u an r A"rac rr rr + i ;I I l >�w r� �j� 1 �' + I 1 *a..wr r r i/ Rf4 I hh �' 2+ fr r ;r" �NNNE f-f'Jr i+ 11 / 1 r YZSM i � ` � a` OQ � � • IrK. __ +! 1 O �fr f 1 raNAm /•^ + ;+ r �r � r i - Qnrc 1 - I -- \ , I • % w s�_C im 20 r r • .I 7 Icgwss ; o�cc ,r uWn NNNa r \ '� S ra qx. 1 i r l >3 Ia f^ - "Irk II I + \\ it - HH • •�`.. i Y 'rrr 1[N� a. r�AAenof;..noed oocnlo+: nsc .�r nrlolax r.¢ I.n, � PACE DEX A.0K - ".nL w+a naiF wwa1z�r7 z eR`01rpr'""ive rp MNNp.Cr Irr>ai Mola1 i 1 am },q MYr/ nr w 1[+I wuli OrrrIf4 13 3 a Yowurpfs,r. rnl mwn w reWcrnL rIA ru, ■ry uasr waYA/n 1r1kA W s,rtaw xuY w Ieler nlAee ru GRAPHIC SCALE o Aaraq I>e p ,rflarr [A11rIri filurA 1ur101 wa x o 2 0 14 9 4 $ B Yrrr.Ir{yq•Irryf[ vu>ti on w1TA 41fi1 a f XAN rL6 nJY Iv1 RPf01.IG arYRr W--Aue A�an,tr" Wei ♦ 'r >•1® >Cr,' aM ,C +W VA 111i0w [IAAr ra - w sc+a�uplrr ulrrIN I 15 10 5 Y ^� r MA-0w sAane YfeAnr Nr wtt enrtw.eor irk .O.P Wfl� 1 —1, =E20 ft. e ya c nnorn pr Afv1c ocweoo rrsnlw HY.ac. _ �- I"MINI' 16 11 6 am ar cwrr, IwR Iv,R i ,win Y mll[S _ o —u=.~fa — lm � o qax R AiiA ! E" E YNR MCx PORTION OF:NE 1/4, SE 1/4. SECTION 36, T. 27 N.,R 3 E. W.M. 112551OrManEWay.SuiM300 PAR —Y] =9 PROJECI N. s�a�wr�rwY wnuaga,WA98033 wu r.rr TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY L125.B21201411.425827,5043 MADRONA JR HGH SCHOOL 16466.10 tlfGagY a1'P EMM33 In 4MwKM 00muDITS 3-111-16 a i I(_6 1lR+ra' 1elu R/ra/pfryq FOR igA7 cw YAW MFE rye Ir I�R l,pgm roArs* Iw,AraeYlr r-xo-ia xe n Ma ci, Sw Wml I Ranmgy l sx ey �°r00 "� " na EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT SHEET_�OF�� -'— 5 P U, Arp flr. V-108 Packet Pg. 55 99 '5d IOMOL'd 60 � -n ..a�. --- DFJ0---U--133HS Lowisia i00Ho6 SONOWO3 0V99M doi Y.0 u ON 1o3roaa AMEM 0MdVHD0d0l ` - - .1 M -3 E 'a "N LZ 1 '9E NOUO3S W i _ !. i --•f j,e 'Y!Wd rM 9 NZI I]OZ - 4uu!133a NIb 0 z ° oz 3ltlOS OlHdtliJ`JZ L X3CM 3E)Vd 1 ;r I!!lr P. 11IM1 fi'Il l1rll,lrl,,, pp ;r r11tlaN v v 1 ' rliiitil's rf'�;,+ i ,,' r ,fr;,� r+r+ l r, l p I Id +„r Iboae I}Y 91 QP- S[H]pnD] 51�3iW]M /F QT N ry 100HOS HEM Ur M08MY EVOS LZB BZt',Irlu zB BZ6d BBO m'WaPPDI em HWf z�l! DDC aINS'eeM P-WDI SSZI L 3-00aV.1—D—n—D— 7W • YNW YqY Oa 30N1iry '•,M SXw Im1WW M e ar a3LNYla v-d _an Or3HlMO �w )111Y� l3anrl l 3J NNO NNHJ d10 Nn a3MOd Ov-0 0 53N F30'IN11 ryplSyl N OOOM000 OIHIOva 111 Orl3 ONYll3N 3nlrn n0 a351tl u/3xOHd313L 3xn u nevo axroa3aw1 53NI5 NNONd31L Oxlbetla30N11 '11� tflN3n°7JN 1pv1 3NONOVN Oti[Ird OW M-1 M ara30 MOT3A YMSr1Y ]b 1N 153E ®!� 1lnYW a313w a3Mod 3NOHdT31/LL3MOd 3 aWOd amosea3am YICL] 0 101d ",a ®WO H3YIN°35apIpNYyAnO 3Nn NIYa�aNriaws 3Nn s a3Y. W ° .— da OY3N a31NNlads )[ 3M1 U OrM 3Nn L — Aaa31p a3LLla H.. wasvnnoa 3a aav3we • 1a3 " CYZTJ noa unuNa3woa gy Z o 31erw .31 ale Nla YY,wb evl i t L a XOMIA (asfssJ 53p �iHrxaH 0 sNny HOMIS MIM Nr 813 .M 33. s110n0lJ30 O ° NOv/3a3 lOdS P —n lltl3a0tla 53Nn a31N,0 y y y m neYw ry 33NL sroa3fIN00 3aIYNIXrt1 y�x axon a33ws 10 NdJ Mlaal CNM31 --_ — I R r .zn-I —.7-i — —x _ _ _ ,•f I � i i r1, o', r I , I �, � \ i r f I ' / i 7' L 3 1 fv I 1 i / Ir 13rNdsy � / 1 / lz , / a3bal oNlxxna �1 3Nn also a3a1-- 1 i 30r � f3 I lSI1l b ! r I r I % ��•,{}'�J� 11v rf r I r r' '! / ! •r ! 1 .. kk W[ l i I f I , +! r • ' Ya# r' f /I J � I 50004/Hsnae . I ', 9s°Y' , 11 ' r i / i I' li 1l7 i \ ! t I I I i I s irifl sari ij p'= 11 i f e'V9 15 '5d IOMOL'd JO QL 133HS I ioituS10 IOOHOs SONOWM oc94491 tl0jI 'ON 103roaa A3AHnS OHdVHDOdOI 7/4 3N:30 NOU80d li OZ = 4°01 l (133J NI) a oz 0 oz 31VOS OlHdV2JO am Hz r � Y� 1 1 _ ;;!0;;Fr ~ , �7yr ri?riri??ijr 5 : li; iiri"r ili'i!I?9�'iil i 'x it+frijifip€I 3y� ;lii iri01pIil �,� rneuNsv""e irxdsr r' _ ;reii i ri P. it 8-M I __ ___ _ C60S LZ SZ6'CC0g6VMZBpR� IHR 1^@F y. S11riR�] 51731euNY AP n36nV7@ BIIC INnYfI x IOOHOS H'JH ii tlNOHOtlW ODE WP5'km Pullmi 99Z1l 30N�NOOM -Y _6_ 33 — e wale 3lIHM N33tlOa3A3 BM l3LnY1 aro Z uu/nr A a313w SVO vn. 3fn Naw ro j1NA SVO w S53Nnf1 tl3MOdNOtl3Ha310 n V M3HHUMOOM—Nn a3lS3M H OOO.M000 O Id MO NaV1B Ma 3wtlarry al3wrd w 3tlON00 oW OM'll3N a351a 3wHadl3L Od 53Ar1 aLLm AH:311 INNIOmmmNNn 535x3N'-OLL OIIO- OOOIAN011Oa M wWaIlVNSr lld 1531 IdL dtl3On 1lnVA1dn 101d YY0 53N�aOxOm nSVO Nw a3.1—WU aw.Od av3u anNwaas 3xn umwurvm,s 3Nn a3M . ur wNV 2d NNiMM� OaDWa 3Nn tl3lvm 3Nn MOV — Aaa3wla3ure IrJe Na'SrlOnoO dO 31dVw N31 Ore nle tl3ewON OVl 33a1 l / {yam Ja ❑ %0 giryw (O so 5310HNYW v ""'1wNrawx inn wiw sIM wale 3uHx� xV3mart3 eM 33w snOiww3a Q ws /nulMry iPdC s3nn AVM-AD-iwla S3Nn.LLa3mad xn wLN3'1 — � 13rp Y911NnOD arnll+n��fM4 ns+ne ranM� Ilr,ft l.111/f [{�-Q na3lrM M, `i , + r 1M1ti J ! r I � ' Rlf ; ^J,Jr r+r •y � 1 r 1 r F ;MyR 1 r f 1 e� F-r Fi3M. 'f ' ®+ t Fsy^rywtlq t' , F i 1J I I 1 1 r 'r 1 M; t I r. I O33ti ssra0 i ' I i r I r 1 La' kp j • r, , !� irr �� i + .zTi-i�F- — �, i r q' If i ■ i t I 1` ' 1 1 , ' ■/ 1 /' f /` ;fof 1,r ; 1 , i ; i + i r ; i f r i .:lri- --� ■ � i� 1 i l l r I i i i i err t 6 I I 1» ;: r rrr 1' I fppOUlfry' ■, ' ' r /+r r i i' r e, V9 i --- rf ff i- ; 11 i f f •i' 1+}rr,if�� iiY� i •% - i IT `\, ~ � i �//R;'•'��.a + � #- � � =1a '_+ � i �r'i �rr+Fr f r E � J ' `''` •'._ ' ur4.3. 1 j el - -a-.� T 3/Nti i'r''L;;�i f i � ' \ `+. rf e'r � -•Z 11 �i4us.'�Ir r �� �1�,��`EfeElrfE , I y #r o-� ` v r-�` `+ �+ \l i i �E �•� aAs9 Flan • I 11 i 11 i tt - Ilke. 13'C� iEr01r4.4J I kol ]Wii ilfl %•'a` ' + I J J'i+r-fi•I},I I r , f r If '- � � ,•,y �a+ `\ , m1 ---- �rr I i � � � f I:r 1 � f 1 li i r y .+ '•R 1 \\ 1'•', i s`+ y� ` • M1 i �Nr' f rrr,' f i Y i i, I RUNNING T`5 1RACH • ' rr / + i f 4 ,''Z �" �r '` i 1'� • � ~' ,.fir. /f fi �r >' %f i i i i f 1 I '• VIM ,, i1YwNryerap `, �\ ,• '• ` pt7 ter" 'rr rr rir +i r r'r � � `. �-li'c is - + ,`'��t oR� uxE � `r / / rrr • ', r' i 1 � ` L i r I i � - �-- - 1 r ,•_ . _ ! . '.' Fri 5 'r'r 94 ar. � r""- ram.» -___ , ` rrr, +.•' // r r'`r-1__I 1_ i � � i \,. ,REEDR,R,,,E _`���= 1 2 '"'^°°°' // I T�f -i �` , i 1 .` J�`• '. "._. NmKe m S •I �'1 /`'� r ' y a',. 1 �y_` v. III J r ""O �• • Il r 1 It ru Npni nl 0171 Qrn % It woes .oa. / i• �. _ sH/w000sSr 8W r _ __ am,sH - - • _ •i ~ - IrJ7'l rll'rr . �• cnx-o xHHxc— , + �'t�•_'r' i�rrrr r.J. r..J r.. �----C4a— US REIF FIR AL 2] ]R]0 0 WASH 01DN LLL _ I• `I us kFlE E1WJLl�Ncr011�Llc 4r -- LEGM o vxw< p-�L....R... Cp11FTNWs TREE M - CENTER NNEs BME NDU vRovERTv ONES A , ODH1M WYINAI E RED —ER --" AI LANES 12 2 —DU— TREE OT�WfS A YURAHT �� N1'ATw'II O w pWnRrr1.4 �1bE — • — — T LANE H N B ®® I&A-s ss/m) r TaEE me nuuRFx aw ale rcAF uAvlc - .A -I MS 13 8 3 Ro C� R➢p(ERY OF DgIpAS FIR apt RITTER CHERRY SANITARY aEY,ER LIRE STORY DRAIN LANE WIEp CHOR vole , —1 CI, :AHU FIR CH CHERRY GAS IJK GRAPHIC SCALE 14 9 4 a 1�T TRANSFORMER IE S%NHNIFR HEM UNDER RRWND BORER ONES R1,IC4 yYy, O.f ® N5A RM C NESIERN RED CEDAR ` ROY,ERINc CHERRY _ uN D TERREH LANES Ix,iU, L m >w Mllrl}4 �Ot DERpWCUW DART£ F` ONES 16 10 5 IV14J1 ��, N UDNDFAWIro FIBER ➢PRc ONES TET£FNWE/TV Rises g D G M C YADR➢NE i'I. AJoi WEPNAGGO =MEAD uTUTY ONES ( IN FEET ) n 5 VALVE C C➢NCREIEM DW FApFC DOGYNDD 1ERN HEm—R - _ _ _ CHAIN UNK FENCE 1 inch = 20 1L H 6 11 6 18 GAS MEhR CIF CHAIN UNK FENCE L LAUREL SR LACE _ _x_ _ x_ AVEW FENCE FLANTER AREA 0 BIRCH YB EVERrnEFN WIFE SHCH-0—D-0— FENCE RWF oaaN ,oR PORTION OF: NE I/4, SE 1/4, SEC ION 36, T. 27 K. R. 3 E_ W.M Ro 112551GAJ2MWay,SUAe3W E TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PROJECT No IWAWH 4C DI - - �_ " .. _ ... M. E_,tiE. \ l� �E a aam,waeeW3 MADRONA JR HIGH SCHOOL p 42582720141142502T5043 TE„Rn Frw MRR•F+� FOR 75458.10 ORM1Wl1 7E� RLV,sEB OT AT1dIl7LL IS La1YE71T5 'i-16-16 idrl K-S Feln a n4.nu.Erw YE,.r f;wuf`EWIIInrw,IS�iTw EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT SHEET 11 aF 78 V-111 El C Packet Pg. 58 6.1.a t i I I 1r' — - - •�(� FEE 1 ssoe j 11 i � III HBE , D,32 � uM Ieen I ., ro...ICDrome i I t r R' C C (Yj� n, DD,fI0D00DIW0 I ss,Br.r wr3 uw E HIoxTLi Wm muEc rLe ow„60000zeoo yy / RI - 6OC—NcoWk X 4p .ua ff NAfllx asTAPscN 233TH S7 SW I 1 1' 9 I a ne W,aTs0000zaao I n, uwnBaaooNao e2 1 r r !• ! 11 ' '%'- 1 T i �b ' oci`O HSE 123fi07 W BETH BUNT l\ W 1 TLI 00afib01 i S S4 \\\ Aa15V li 1 1 .; l,d� ;•r wAA HND 5 OF f , �w RIM 3Bs6T 'I ' K 12 aNc (uE)=36 1 1 J I ,<Iel 9IT j5 1 1 I 1 ■ Iz 3 CONC(51)=I� 1 e,aB ✓C 1 ' NSN;1nao5'SI 1 O" 11 .„, ; H02 J --A SAHI , ' 1 1 ' I '� • !! 1 1 i Y'4 '� i 1 �, ]]NA TLI oO,bb I } DIEM 1 k r err i ! sd + I 1'� i i d i i due` i d 1 , • � �} 1 I ' I I {� p I 4 I 1 SOiI 0 RIM TBB.TB L II � .'A� IAT / 1 I r T �•' (EMH CHAN 68'2IT CONC 1 r +d , 1 NE/sYn=3577 NM { 1 eJ 00-1 i I'// a id• ddr If ', TLI W s,001003ao ed r'` el %r w•, d1 i1 'i' 1 )�„ J / ,1` — — — — — — — — ' e,ueyd`cvTs %` ' !>I» • I d1 I p d ,, eT`�; - r !� di + f • �i i M e, ,li sock I+� •A! �n d r P i� • 1 .. � LEGEM 1MGA:: C e11rRS IlOIT Lg1CN•[ CorefFJtWS mEE I1. A CENTER ONR i nlS r x I. RRIDAnW CWTROI tacIxd,IIYFE W OdMN L.°E dKC A Rm ALOE„ PROPERTY u. !i HYDRANT _ FLEVAnOrI O DEUWWB TREE — ICMT-OF-WAY IINR MA1flt MP1ER EUROPEAN NNIIE BIRCH —_ IYP N.ef 17 2 ® ® u"xHIXES (SS/SO) ��� N�EORMY , I TREE TAG NIIMBEA BIN BIG LEAD MAPLE — ROW NNE ❑ CB TER ONE Po µ"UTY POLE . BOLEAFT OF aauau xR BON BITTEx CxERRx , Kv� y Im 13 B 3 Il 14£R HEM GRAND FlR CH CHERRY TOrIId ��' I,rf. P.. , TPANSPWMEn cr yK ralc GRAPHIC SCALE /1El£P E VAULT OP1 ® DATA PLOT r d(ST[IIx I® SEP,r1 ICX RAIST�A PL/1 ,� TE 10 20 b 14 J 4 K Tv1 ® MST PIT K Ay¢'d rSLiP. SLtw1 • MSLO. Aelp[pylpfV WL r Y[r RIRIaVn 1�11. g MEnAao Euc Ma Rdnrc wp1[Y CTr aAp E,Pm..PCO X vet 0°.'� 15 10 5 y m s vRVE Ru PUNTER AREA x W� �R IMQ (IN FEET ) ® cas k/ •N'XK PSr.n v Itl4YlEA �� �•�,�� 1 ch - m it 16 11 6 DRAIN dD Max ENi IN CASE P `HE H l•1^aliry yarL )t _p=0_0= —0 PENCE uV� PORTION OF -.NE 1/* !�E tIAI SECTION 36, T. 27 N, R J E., WM 14751r1m"WII t,8lt M AAA At, iR eDL! HKOACT NO.. :eu/uLc xv r epWnd W19lV� x r TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 12saraau{e,�asra�eq MADRONA JR HIC>fi SCHOOL 16468W 7RAF}1 OWB 11EY.SEO BY .4N(dDT[CTS COBId/Felt5 9-1p-T6 1� K-8 Ir1O l0>< rxn,a.elu FOR ti.Ae Ir MaM >R ]AE a>4Krt5 PER nulorA l FuaFST dluu aAan 1-xo-ra *m s+deI 3wwvl r EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT SIE£T 12 NE 78 V-112 Packet Pg. 59 uF i'''cc •a'j'- ���� 'Mr IFS .A DRIP LINE `v TREE WRF IwC�+ �'! Nsr / :xrT D DR., RAMBA wnON / � Q � ' 1 .� i sxas / 1' i` • i / If 11 ' ff. Ir41 rr Aa l � i !�f / r f �/ f i• s ry_Y �� ' � ,� ` `r r. fr��� So / � R•A I r + i xss A zsTo1 wNOD Raft • �r 1\ f Mw ILEA i i 1 V'� RDI i r r�,r �r r ' f 1 ; 1 '' r na ! n14 L / i 1 i ' r11c�o i xsE 123707 r� /1 N 1 ' 1 i r • \\ I i ill rr /'f/r ++t i.' r` r >U DWARRppeq}1p !r / rµ.1 ! \ n W [.I[ ! �r� 1 .Srt + yr c ' RI»au44 \\ •`� 4`:. t�f1 ( tfA�. /l v + iE iz• `CLAMP cNE1-3sR.R r e r en I 1 + l i i csw)=ssR.R _ I r i 1 I I r'r +� DR LINE \ �wss Bon �` �� - _ - - _---•. � i i i i � ' + �+ 'DFIz i ; r 1 r . \ + iii ;Ij� ' I i' J-13 —.� i r' r f '•i \ i i i' '� r .I I i N[ IAmr4a • 4Ue Ft— \ gg I' R +2' CUP TL aa1+q !L `1y 1k .L r— � �i ar ii'� iL + \/ _- i )�•+ilttl E I I !I . BDYNIE ARIHUF If f ' llrl hy. r• 1/♦f!! '`b. / ` I ! I i 1 1' 11 A 10 • >U WI,RIlOr . f 1` i.1M ii 1� i rF r r- ' 11 1' 1 Y I i I I 1! �C. x WA1FR VALVE C Cp+IFER �R S ® RMCAIIgJ [oN1R0L -0 Si p ET PAI k WS TREE R— INES R d roRAHT ETE ATIDN n'A UNIEA~OAEAR O DECIDUOUS TRUE A RED ALDER ROVERwFY dNES NA DFi( g warm METFN o 9�'RDx RD Raa DRaN xs EuxavEAN rmITE ewcx — . — . — for LINES 2 �o co acs 1ss/sD> noaa:Rr 1 + nar IQ Rir eun eIc 1r.AF MAPIE _ _ _ Dl— ux E 12 7 YrkAWx OURT lai .—RD � DDII¢Ai rw era elrlEn cHERRr SAIRTARI LILAC NE 8 3 999 �.Ma qu,r:wp�y tt va.,wl K.D v a+AxD FIR 6 I r I 1 1 onm/IEIEPxONE vauLT Dvt ® yArA. nyl C `[siuR 16D Swn FCN EUOIRAAW OR�r1I uxDERGROUND —R LANES GRAPHIC $EAR w 14 9 4 UNDER —ND TEIEvx LINES \ PDWER METER m+ ® lESi PIT K —A rFlloW CEDAR W mLLOW u ndw c.w[ r. LINES o TELEPHONEM RSER g wEnaND nAc M1 PACUIC wWn(Ui "LAV` AyllEy�ppp f p'TC LINES (IN FEET) 15 10 5 9k *y mAS Tr HACIFlC DDGxOOD n A[iRau HMCOSC u� A iL ® cas uErcR RIR _ _ — RMfw mt,I—E u+es 1 inch = 20 rc 16 11 6 r>t w L LAUET FE-U•�U—N—'•—•�� mRENrtNCE iTNCE � [wnw4H wIe sRv.= wooD ice ^ai Er Ire. a 6 PORTION OT Ix 1/. SF I/A. SEC ON ., 1 A ) !. W.M ., I7 [:PD CAC MRH 117iS &b 310 WR urALM5 >•i[r141M, XN 49r67 PROJECT N0. ..uw IDRAWN DMB REVISED BY ARCHITECTS COMMENTS •r18-16 %jil 0425.02T.2014 r.42562T.5D43 MADRONA JR HIGH SCHOOL -ww '•- TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY -- ._ y.ssrDr- ■mtAw . FOR 16456.10 1Y' PLAT CHK WRH ADD 1Rff TAtt HVMB[R$ PER gMERICAN FOREST iWIAplp 1-tC-IM1 {p1 Cm1�SNxtxel�PMnnMg �Survr K_8 IlOa opw 144,7x4»M 3ssP y oA Aw uR.+ab NaR can �ru� EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT HEEr 13 o i V-113 Packet Pg. 60 v:\ne\twee is - unmain rc-e\va\sm¢Yvr✓n po zain\�s\teae�v.vrn §g� r 1 � t P Of ........... '$ ------------ ! = r i --------------------- + I ----M1�,:—.. f i y--- - -- ---- ----------------- - - - - - - ---------- ---------------------- -- ------------- -- o * N -------------------- --- . --�_ . ---�-- _ - -�---------------- --- - --_---.a►--- , -_ Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) 6.1.a noW446JOOWISOo a,Lr r l l ! `�h ; L f; I o I y i 'U! 4' 1 ! itirk+ * , I I + ' .i P, �• r. a nrmz I f I I H�+�i` I rrr rr f. I No r l 1! � ir-- I rR i t 1 i ! J nnE1 I f 11 1 1 I} 1 We (vwj ii9 az s _ * 1 ♦ ! ; A/Y.11sM I I 1 1 1 i i nil ' t i ' E�En•`ca:c (87=34B az , 1 , . ; , . r •rc +u-'�.a , 1 ntiY �i �j ) r! ! E's CONC (E)-349 92 , k 1 • I 1 1 ' I 11 '`4.t ` ' / rr y'+ -+� i i Tli �-W +' ' - i + 1 r 1 1 sTaa t 1; 1 it no OOARHL]6DWOz4W , Iti S t' 1.!-es i J } , ! i ; r i r J 1 �laT 1 I fI I` r' ! I li 0" 1 TIF ; , wsm ia.+ 7T Hszr i I ' 11 l i + a z Ir ; D I t ]aTPY N �rz:, lf f rrrv' p 1 1,cek wl.AE� ' ' i I' TN Iw r I r ty I¢pI r I d E12� arwy'•.inni` r a,c 11 r ?< a o ni »+: i J I' + i i 1 I T a ! 3Mr.T 4 ! i + i I v: is ra +r r J �rrl iwcos , I ` r r + i ! i f I t 1 ; ii/ ? } I 1 'S 1 \ l; I 1 r i I ly J ; 1 to + ,x t 1 PMerT 4:.• rL� P9•m. +i� / +If '` i. /- wn°°ns ,r r fr r fM�coxc wAlxl �� ' mle .ur •ai ! ;! J 1 1 i ,+ ,•+`., •' ti 1 y.7'n3Ism irr _______-+•'7 rgalz i i 1 1aA na �_ i Ir 1 1 law i rM ./ ' ww »z1 T a wat A+r I i \ IrY (NE) -35101 1 `! GA i 09- iql}� I i t r h j e c i r• rr A_3 1 P i i I 11 MI I 1 ! „• A,I, 1 1 l r , ' r I ! r 1 1.[j1 �` oDiC BU 1 l ' 1 + + / pF•T I PR[ ' ASvxALT a 1 ', asp Iri 1r , I! �. � i � �I � ,1 ; 1! t+ 1 i i 1 k � r` f � �r•a a-t y.' .v ... r: r+ • f +r' f i+` NaAxaRoUNo0 L/MuAyV1 10 ra ,r A.\ p, LEGEND �1 + d L r __ v ! l R J 1 :• rr ® i WATER VALE p—BTREET aGHi TBEE d NYWNi �� o� >itlT eNuwNW n+ R +uIIR AVA O oEGDUWSTREE 4c 140pr ar-RoTMF-NNwAvsuxcs PAGEND AP� — -- --•.— SOT 1R[S 12 7 2 yMU 1SRR aW w..l W W b 911lIfAl1 MIC .IIeX n'!GE lIK NNg VERY 01 TREE TAG NUMBER BILM BIG LEAF MARE 13 6 3 pqE . BIX1MD F 000GLA5 FlN BCH BITTER CHERRY SS411�TARyEAER TINE 31. MTAO GRAND RR GAS UNERNN aNE GRAPHIC SCALE 14 9 4 �I Pa1T. RWVTaO.. WDERGNIXIND' PONER MNES TOY[II/ItlGAl4[ Y1YLT DPI ® OAsi ROE GI KTig41W [�+1 RM 1LOIWO GWr WDERGRWND TEl£PNWE ux[s `0 L P.— METER m, ® AC MA1/` WA&d 7" KECIIT GROUND —LE W UNES �I 10 S r f ,ppwlnl/ry RIGR WET,TND FLAG C- MADRONE alsDt SOn6.K,], p �� EAD POMER UNEV ES ( IN FEET ) _ _ 16 f2 GA5 aLH o PAaOc Wwoao n� SIPM MIMU,♦t N OnWIWi DINlN' Ln[a 1 inch = 20 K ® CAS MERR rm Lw LAURELD ��--•r--a��-• Y-EfE11I I.� B El— M [1[.[.IIM 14•R � _0 `0 _0 HOOD FENCE PORTION OF: NE 1/4. SE 1 /4, SECTION 36, T 2T N, R 3 E. W N1 1125510Wand Way, Suils 300 NR ALY 1L�1p11 PROXCT NO, CAO/C+C .nH "BB" WA ,u. r. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY Argil evn REMSE0 BY ARfj01EC'S C9uYENIS 51-10-14 MWI P•425527201411.425.B27-5D43 MADRONA JR HGH SCHOOL w � 1545610 Mi PIAY' YERH O TFE[ TAG MRVB[RS P[R AJ,OpaCAll FOREST MAIIMALQ+ 1-YQ-16 "N CHN I SWCWrzl I flannIrg I Survey K-8 r� •T EDMOND3 SCHOOL DISTRICT SHEET�rLOF� ! SYL RElSP'LlE jtkn M[aomnf'•n••u•�.•r O1C FltE 15A5a•fa..+.4 V-115 Packet Pg. 62 6.1.a J x R A 21 TLI OOAA6]00002SOD 26 Oi ii� , ZI G i WBS'HIO _ 5\ 11 + 1 Py Y 6 of aj 562 yl, p I II .A.rsA,f n 6 IE a- PSGWwf+na� I e 117>f� I ron AWww niAgA.L1¢OrrL R . of 2z xD irvi-111 z IE <- Pvc aiKi.4al v I ! I ,1J 'coluWAN iJ• Sn. . n�Cr � coxc �'� i• � ,�/cGNc _� nor arnY�Tr�ei � -" � r eAv � o a r cm' `:;.»s ar.Ar.+e fr � �•.r�.�r' 14- %' ",,•�,� r r �oD.AM'6ioD�ozTRD ; � ' r^'y", 1 1aRb. -- ; +� , fin. i �._- � ,>:'• , / A Q ce... (s)^z2J K�r (E)-]6122;.: i 1 A f / e A Ie6 T.w �r ig ' 1A �� t sueR, p.�r;�• ,�}� •h, yy — _ — . _ _ . _ _ `� A :i•wwQ " , ` r='� �vr' A Ice 1w,a ,ir'a'r 11j , I r 'nor : v uiniav r 'I' YRorRDDa°Awo t oz°eoo r ` r�/ r z]�D '12TYPE 2 + n lR1M-]6D ]e K I- A�I i ' I !1•f91 ¢15 O D 3 {1{A�w,.»r.a .E 12 coxc (I� b IE 12" C-o"34R 11 xc Rc}aAln A' r • 1' ,,i 5 j c ian Fl+c } u 1 � rR4 r 4 zN R T1 i 'llr �• i I n�I[lir / i ryn Iw 1 `1 VIM "We W iIli + [ t 1 ` R ••,tA� o-T ' A HALT 1; �1 • "� ��. r,�, ,{�}1�! I i 'i 1 �'�. As at Itl A' r EB wIM-M212 A � i BRUEHpWDWs r i e 1 I i r I ' 1 i i �A t,,i 'SIL i •i i I �I r Qrl •AIK '� + 1 '� 'S `� I rr � I % 15 i ' f win sr ow, (, 1 • ' ++' 1` _ 1 r � r 1 1 1 -- I, I R f 5 I r 7 •'r' 1 I + ' 16CIIER V _ J ''i CB TYPE 21 IM=352 )2 E 12• CO (N)-]aR12 IE 2A C_ (E)=]4B.12 co 0 (W1)--� aas „ •!. Ir nple ,,,,,,}}fi}}}r Ilsll PR^• 4 IE 2N / = iz oxc6cH)-u I EIMAN aoAaDas KBGoo6o1W ! I ENNY HIX- cWC Is) JATLI DOIPA66o0001600 R/LOMBBG0001]00 TLI � l ]n � r / I LEGEl�7 Q wwvaAv vqCENTERxNJ I. Q rILAfi'JA LUMINN [WT CHAIN UNN GENCE A GIT.OF Y UNES d Y19.IIfI 5OEIEVARON PA PLANTER AREA O DEGlDUWS TREE EUROPEAN WXIIE BIRCH — . . — LOUTX UE EWA MN-E'RY 9 N uQ 11 TREE TAG WMBER BIM BIG LEAF "API A W UNE Op C ROCKERY PIXEL P—munWY GIAS FlR BCH BIKER CNFRPY $.UlIT YN SEWFR UNf G IXUIrvERAIN UNE F ANCHOR IG� POWER iRy E`P 1 yWhLA IYAO GGFIR C KQ Vyyr rpl ILppllp plprt 11 GRourvD POKER UxEs GRWND TEIEPHWE UNES ,•-_S7.Q''� P RIwElllnHE VAULT DPI ® DA T AC SKA OW GFDAR W LLO uNN.O CABLE N UNEs PoZ,.,m¢710 m1 ® LEST PIT MADRWE PACIFIC—ENE UCK COTTONNo00 I —GROUND �— FlBFR OPRC UNES TEIE➢HONEM RISFR P N£II.V,D f1AG e DW DOGNOOD HW STERN HEULOG( OVERHEAD POKER TINES OVERHEAD P QIRR[W Y>;1[Y .A1L: RI As VALVE ® GAs METER LAUREL B BIRCH M [TITAA[MI Iw.1E IBC+ -t—v—d— NGLG Ado COMMENTS ¢'s° " MADRONA . HIGH SCHOOL P 42S6YL16H I r. 425 B27 5043 fit K-6 Ar +• ' �W i2i61ME���! 1 1 A IB BRUSH)NOODS ' us Irr ItRpyE Ix1M rApLxolyA LLQ RI 1rD]AIO¢Ap}ppp l PAGE *M 12 7 2 13 s 3 GRAPHIC SCALE 14 9 4� aD q re a 15 10 5 fin IN FEET ) 1 !ch-2D It 76 11 s PORTION EbRi1C11/6f:TWd. IT. 27 M.. FR. 3IL. MNM TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PROJECT NQ [W TEAu E.pvp.prr FOR 15456.10 EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT SHEET—j(L—01,_jo__ V-116 Packet Pg. 63 c t 'S' S EAST OF AVEN ALE WPR s ggT4T T _ ACYfS$ ROAD or OTIEAI Affm 10 F $> L SIDEWALK PROJECT ^• J' M ��• - - 9A111ARYYRB YAFiIaE 4 1' _Br u L 4 `SECROL1 36, WMBSIIP 27� NDM RANGE 3 EASi -_ . - - - -- -_ _. _ - -•w -- OUTFALL TO rIP-) WETLAND SS (TV.) L• B'• WATER MAW At S:w COVER trip) 2' CAS SERVICE (TIP.). D AWRY SPALL WFFALL PROYEm (IMP,]' �- 1- BIORETENTION PLANTER WTH -4'-UNDER-DRAM- -- - • •.. y .. Ni}L �—D(11RECTTD Ek .� •- 'rc-�. y. � :,.� �,:;_., �. J ..1 � _ .,.w:,;... _ _ � � � _y � � .. -- � � -- 11 7✓F�SiI' ``.• -2'CAS MAIN-- i1 0XINECT TO EX 6' .� - .' • -- . •-7i . _ ., r=' - per. "p_. -_-- K Ty__Y_. yi.--r,: - - - mo w ' . ' "• TAPPING TEE WATER MAIN T---a -q i-r"" _ -o r'1"6 a - ¢ 1 ` .. �_ >t ..�_ `N r-..W.--�--"_" 1 [I]-Ir TAPPING VALVE . rM STD Dn *4, �� w • 1 . E EK CA1171 SARI i0 8E REPLACED BY -FIRE ACCESS ROAD A l 1 f 4 ( , ` V ORMIRS PRIOR 10 - t ' FYJS1MiG 56 ALONG � �' • �, _ L ' . - -'•iw _ ^' 1�2361H TO REMAIN .. '•----� I •------ r. - -'•- i .4 I r LIFE I RB-`, � I •, i 'I � .- ,h � ,I I P1Ha 441.1 ��•[`, DE11K1ATION . � � � I �I 1 I r1 I-r'-z,• I�I l`-- A i,:,r.~ I 1 I I 11 ' 46N ST SW FRONTAL( - - ;. rt •. 12 '1 ] : 1 /`"�j:. , _ .. _ ^TETRixk GVRe iIYP.) ••• _ _ ! 7 . •j- EJ950N6 POWER III _ .AIM] ASEOCTA1fD WFES 1 I'-� FRENCH DRAW FO CCLTGI I ELIIS ORLP OFF M.:•. AM236TN TO IREMAW I .-.•I. ! PLAY MD RUNOFF i .. ..� n1RN-AIND11N0 - F W 1 ;' y 1 - FACUL[Y pA1tl6NC t4 T _ `T� — — — _ I, 151 I _---17 tkS*4 SS ALONG ::= :• .._-+�_.,_ A .--� . _ •..... a.. ! 1w = ``s--,` 1'• -X_ _ 1 csi (IMP.) T�• 1 RIM. 447S _ _ -i _ I .144.5 - �Y IE 4 Uc FlFIO 401 _s L ' ] y •� _.1. •6 n• . WILLS L •1; \ RIM- 446.2 - •4 �0!'F:,�' .T r,i'••' :1 _ _ _ .. .' +AIWTRIA UAYTIlUCD]itE '3 CAR11116pE eAYFR1ER t1N _...----- ..:' DL/WA1ER SEPANAIDR ITjT+.};:ry 41 I t APPROuOW T-TID61` IIFI:'i:--l-•--•Y . .'i.,, .� • ' tk tom.).... - - 12' IE- 441.0 TYPE 1 CB.�.- - ... �. -- CURB ATIDYIUTTER - LIFE t8 1 •r- !. - RIM= 44J.5 - - - -- _ _ (,) IAMa 44+A ; • ~` S 12" IE= 440.5 VISITOR PARKING k (TYP,) 12 E• 44F.0. I 4 TYPE I W 1 � r r rFrt• c'' -. RIM n 443.5 94TH AVE FIRE ACCESS/SERVICE ROAD D,O' gO7pr AJV4TFR ��~� IEAYi f)LLrr ASPHALT PAVpAEIIi -- PER EDYGNOS STD DETAIL E-21.3 0 15 w w _-_ - -- ---- -- 3/EXISTING FINISH GRADE II h BIORETENTION SOIL -i TYPE 1 OB WHERE \ 6" WATER MAIN L SHOWN ON PLANS - - 2" GAS SERVICE GRAVEL BACKFlLLFOR DRAINS 4" UNDERDRAIN PIPE 6" SEWER CUP 01 BIORETENTION PLANTER SECTION � SCALE: 1"=4' C-110 u HOTIS 1, REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR PRELIMINARY GRADING, PLANTING LAYOUT AND DWENSION OF ATE FEATURES INCLUDING DRIVE AISLE, FIRE LANE, PARKING STALLS, WALKWAYS, ETC. 2. D TT NO ORM � LOCA A ET 910M ARE PREI WARY AND WILL BE FURTHER COORDINATED AS PROdIEiSE3 3, PROPOSED WATER PIPES ARE DUCTILE IRON PIPE (DP), CLASS 52 WATER MAIN LOOP IS ASSUMED TO BE B-INCH DIAMETER, FIRE HYDRANT LATERALS AND FIRE SERVCE ARE ASSUMED TO BE 6-NCH DIAMETER, AND DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE IS ASSUMED TO BE 4-INCH DiAAIEIER THESE D.DADHTS WILL BE FURTHER COORDINATED AND REFINED AS DESIGN PROGRESSES 4. FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS AND SPACING ARE APPROXMATE AND WILL BE COORDINATED WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AS DESIGN PROGRESSES 5. SANITARY SEWER SERVICE IS ASSUMED TO BE 8-INCH DIAMETER PVC SOR-35, CONNECTED TO THE SEWER MAIN WTH 4B-INCH DIAMETER SANITARY MANHOLES A CREASE INTERCEPTOR IS REWIRED OUTSIDE THE BUILDING FOR THE KITCHEN, SERVICE LOCATION AND SIZE WILL BE FURTHER COORDINATED AND REFINED AS DESIGN PROGRESSES 6. STORMWATER WILL GENERALLY BE COLLECTED IN A SERIES OF CATCH BASINS AND CONVEYED, MA GRAVITY FLOW, TO UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL (UIC) VEL FIELDS. APPROXMATE RIM AND INVERT ELEVATIONS ARE PROVIDED AT THE BEGINNING/END OF GRAVTY SYSTEMS FOR INTERPOLATION BETFEETJ. ALL STORM DRAIN CATCH BASINS SHALL BE FITTED WITH DOWN TURNED ELBOWS ON THE OUTLET PIPE/& TOTAL NUMBER OF UIC WELLS 15 ASSUMED TO BE 25, LOCATED IN 4 SEPARATE FIELDS, COMPRISED OF 4 TO 9 WELLS EACH. SEE NOTES TO RENEWER/DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS BELOW. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL DEMOUSH ALL MTING SURFACE AND BELOW GRADE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE UMIT OF WORK, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED- All SUBSURFACE UI1U7ES, CORRESPONOING STRUCTURES, AND BUILDING FOUNDATIONS SHALL BE COMPLETELY REMOVED AND BACKFlLLED. B. STORMWATER POLLU70N PREVENTION (SWIP) CONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES (BMPB), METHODS, AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT REWIRDAENTS OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND STANDARDS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) NOTES TO REVIEWER/DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS I. UIC TESTING, WELL DESIGN, AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ARE CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS BY SHANNON AND WILSON NUMBER OF WELLS SHOWN ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) SET IS BASED OFF OF PREUMINARY HYDROGEOLOGIC REPORT DATED JUNE 20. 2016 AND FMILTS FROM A SHORT DURATION TEST ON A SINGLE ONSITE TEST WELL. IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE WE71 S WLL BE 100' DEEP, 24.0, AND CONTAIN A 40' LONG SCREEN, THE UPPER 60' OF THE WELLS IS ASSUMED TO BE ENCASED IN A 36' STEEL CASING. THESE PARAMETERS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AS DESIGN PROGRESSES Z BASIC WATER QUALITY TREATMENT AND AN OIL/WATER SEPARATOR IS SHOWN FOR UIC FIELD JOT. UIC WELL FIELDS 102-04 ARE ASSUMED TO NOT REQUIRE PRETREATMENT OTHER THAN A CATCH BASIN WTH DOWN TURNED ELBOW, UIC PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA WILL BE COORDINATED WHEN UIC TESTING IS COMPLETED. 3. EXISTING WETLANDS SHALL REMAIN. BASE FLOW REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN WETLAND FUNCTION WILL BE COORDINATED WTH SHANNON AND WILSON AS DESIGN PROGRESSES 4, URUTY AND STORM DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE SHOWN NORTH OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING ARE ROUTED THROUGH THE EXISTING BUILDING STRUCTURES WITH THE ASSUMPTION THEY WILL BE INSTALLED AFTER THE BUILDINGS ARE DEMOLISHED. WE REQUEST CONSTRUCTION PHASING INPUT FROM THE GCCM AND WLL COORDINATE UTIUTY ROUTING AS THE DESIGN PROGRESSES, 5. WATER AND SEWER SERVICE IS PROVIDED BY OLYMPIC VIEW WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT, WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE SHOWN IS PRELIMINARY AND WILL BE COORDINATED WITH OLYMPIC VIEW AS DESIGN PROGRESSES IT IS ASSUMED THAT ONE DOMESTIC WATER METER WLL SERVE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. 6. FOUNDATION DRAINAGE WILL BE DESIGNED FOR LATER SUBMITTALS PER GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS NOT YET DEVELOPED, IT IS ASSUMED THAT FOUNDATION DRAINS WILL SURROUND THE PERIMETER OF EACH BUILDING AND CONSIST OF A 4' PERFORATED PIPE BACKFILLEO WITH GRAVEL BACKFlLL FOR DRAINS THEN WRAPPED IN GEOTEXTILE FOR UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE, THE FOUNDATION DRAINS WLL CONNECT TO ADJACENT STORM DRAINS VIA SOLID WALLED PIPE ROOF DRAINS SHALL NOT CONNECT DIRECTLY TO ANY PERFORATED FOUNDATION DRAIN PIPE LEGEND - - - - - APPROXIMATE UNIT OF WORK a SANITARY SEWER w WATER MAIN m STORM DRAIN -------•— UNDERDRAIN o NATURAL GAS SEWER MANHOLE 61 UIC WELL O STORM DRAIN MANHOLE Q TYPE 2 SMGDH DRAIN CATCH BASIN • TYPE 1 STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN • STORM DRAIN OR SANITARY SEWER CLEANWT QUARRY SPALL OUTFALL PROTECTION 4( FIRE HYDRANT 11-I WATER MAIN FlTRNG WITH THRUST BLOCK N GATE VALVE REINFORCED TURF UGHT DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT 2.5' HMA/4' CSBC HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT 3' HMA/2'CSTC/4%SBC 5 1/2' CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER EDMONDS SID DETAIL EZ13 ® CONCRETE PAVEMENT 6'CONC/6'CSBC TYPE 'A' CURB AND GUTTER PER EDMONDS STD DETAIL E2.6 VERTICAL CURB PER EDMONDS STD DETAIL E210 Call 811 6.1.a mahlum 71 COLUMBIA I FLOOR 4 sums WA 9 B 1 D 1 (206) 441.4I61 OFFICE (206)441-047B FAX 1231 NW 4OWT I sun[ lax PORTLAND OR 97209 (5031224.4032 OFFICE (503T 224-091B FAX MAHLUM ARCHITECTS INC kpff I601616 A.e,Juq Su%e ItbO canoe, wA9BLo7 10/F7L.414T 19.0, PRELIMINARY i Edmonds SCHOOL DISTRICT Fecn:maem Iee,mJJB,.•••r 4«yI EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT MADRONA SCHOOL ESD 9300 236TH ST SW, EDMONDS, WA 98020 C CUP 01 07nule CUP RESPONSE BI MARK DATE IE9CRIPIMIN MMIE IMTE: 051162016 ISSUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITI ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD AAOIELT-Kk- TTRTOAIB mebwat _ JCO/TJE A CORLBDl FIUN C-110 Packet Pg. 64 iI.< e O O O S e S 6 6 Q I uc rxw jP2 --' iE I (d) WIJJS '- RIM 445 12' HE• 437.4 . � 1 1 . SECTION 36. TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST FIELD RESTORATION AND UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM, SEE LANDSCAPE,(TYT+-) .Ti •y.A x , 3 N TO' +LNG TEE VALVE N-7 04 0 IS 30 60 I1 1nE NOTES 1. REFER M lA;SCAPE PLANS FOR WU AH,Wr 0AAIIIK RANTM0. LATDIJT AND Wl;M U 511E FUTURES DKIJUCK DRIVE ATRE, FOIE LIME PAJCONG STALLS, WALIDIU . ETC 7. UTYITY AIM STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS LOCATION, SIZE El SHIM HEREIN ARE Tii MOIRY *0 KI, BC FURTHFAL GAS OE PRppRESES. 3, PROPOSED WATER PIPES ARE DUCTILE IRON PIPE (DIP), CLASS 52. WATER MAIN LOOP IS ASSUMED TO BE B-INCH DIAMETER, FIRE HYDRANT LATERALS AND FIRE SERVICE ARE ASSUMED TO BE 6-INCH DIAMETER, AND DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE IS ASSUMED TO BE 4-INCH DIAMETER. THESE ELEMENTS WILL BE FURTHER COORDINATED AND REFINED AS DE-90H PROGRESSES 4, FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS AND SPACING ARE APPROXIMATE AND WLL BE COORDINATED WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AS DESIGN PROGRESSES 5, SANITARY SEWER SERVICE IS ASSUMED TO BE 8-INCH DIAMETER PVC SDR-35, CONNECTED TO THE SEWER MAIN WITH 46-INCH DIAMETER SANITARY MANHOLES, A GREASE INTERCEPTOR IS REWIRED OUTSIDE THE BUIWING FOR THE KITCHEN, SERVICE LOCATION AND SIZE HILL BE FURTHER COORDINATED AND REFINED AS DESIGN PROGRESSES 6• STORMWATER WLL GENERALLY BE COLLECTED IN A SERIES OF CATCH BASINS AND CONVEYED, NA GRAVITY FLOW, TO UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL (UIC) WELL FIELDS APPROXIMATE RIM AND INVERT ELEVATIONS ARE PROVIDED AT THE BEGINNING/END OF GRAVITY SYSTEMS FOR INTERPOLATION BETWEEN. ALL STORM DRAIN CATCH BASINS SHALL BE FITTED NTH DOW TURNED ELBOWS ON THE OUTLET PIPE/$, TOTAL NUMBER OF UIC WELLS IS ASSUMED TO BE 25, LOCATED IN 4 SEPARATE FIELDS, COMPRISED OF 4 TO 9 WELLS EACH. SEE NOTES TO REVIEWER/DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS BELOW, 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL DEMOUSH ALL EXISTING SURFACE AND BELOW GRADE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE LIMIT OF WORK, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL SUBSURFACE UTILITIES, CORRESPONDING STRUCTURES, AND BUILDING FOUNDATIONS SHALL BE COMPLETELY REMOVED AND BACKFILLED. 6• STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION (SW+P) CONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES (BMPs), METHODS, AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WTH THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND STANDARDS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) NOTES TO REVIEWER/DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS L UIC TESTING, WELL DESIGN, AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ARE CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS BY SHANNON AND WILSON, NUMBER OF WELLS SHOWN ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) SET IS BASED CFF OF PRELIMINARY HYDROCEOLOGIC REPORT DATED JUNE 20, 2016 AND RESULTS FROM A SHORT DURATION TEST ON A SINGLE ONSITE TEST WELL IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE WELLS WILL BE 100' DEEP, 24.0, AND CONTAIN A 40' LONG SCREEN. THE UPPER 50' OF THE WELLS IS ASSUMED TO BE ENCASED IN A 36' STEEL CASING, THESE PARAMETERS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AS DESIGN PROGRESSES. 2 BASIC WATER WAUTY TREATMENT AND AN OIL/WATER SEPARATOR IS SHOWN FOR UIC FIELD SOH, UIC WELL FIELDS 102-04 ARE ASSUMED TO NOT REWIRE PRETREATMENT OTHER THAN A CATCH BASIN NTH DOWN TURNED ELBOW UIC PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA WILL BE li COORDINATED WHEN UIC TESTING IS COMPLETED 3, EXISTING WETLANDS SHALL REMAIN, BASE FLOW REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN WETLANO FUNCTION WILL BE COORDINATED NTH SHANNON AND WLSON AS DESIGN PROGRESSES 4. UTILITY AND STORM DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE SHOWN NORTH OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING ARE ROUTED THROUGH THE EXISTING BUILDING STRUCTURES WTH THE ASSUMPTION THEY WILL BE INSTALLED AFTER THE BUILDINGS ARE DEMOUSHED. WE REQUEST CONSTRUCTION PHASING INPUT FROM THE GCCM AND WILL COORDINATE UTILITY ROUTING AS THE DESIGN PROGRESSES, 5, WATER AND SEWER SERVICE IS PROVIDED BY OLYMPIC NEW WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT, WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE SHOWN IS PRELIMINARY AND WILL BE COORDINATED NTH OLYMPIC NEW AS DESIGN PROGRESSES, IT IS ASSUMED THAT ONE DOMESTIC WATER METER WILL SERVE THE PROPOSED I" DEVELOPMENT, 6. FOUNDATION DRAINAGE WILL BE DESIGNED FOR LATER SUBMITTALS PER GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS NOT YET DEVELOPED, IT IS ASSUMED THAT FOUNDATION DRAINS WILL SURROUND THE PERIMETER OF EACH BUILDING AND CONSIST OF A 4" PERFORATED PIPE BACKFILLED NTH GRAVEL BACKFILL FOR DRAINS THEN WRAPPED IN GEOTEXTILE FOR UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE, THE FOUNDATION DRAINS WILL CONNECT TO ADJACENT STORM DRAINS NA SOUP WALLED PIPE. ROOF - DRAINS SHALL NOT CONNECT DIRECTLY TO ANY PERFORATED FOUNDATION DRAIN PIPE. LEGEND 'I --- —" -- "-- -- APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF WORK a SANITARY SEWER w WATER MAIN STORM DRAIN - — — — — — — - UNDERDRAIN I 0 NATURAL OAS O SEWER MANHOLE ® UIC WELL 0 STORM DRAIN MANHOLE 0 TYPE 2 STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN 0 TYPE 1 STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN • STORM DRAIN OR SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT QUARRY SPALL OUTFALL PROTECTION FIRE HYDRANT WATER MAIN HUNG WTH THRUST BLOCK H GATE VALVE REINFORCED TURF LIGHT DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT 2.5' HMA/4' CSBC HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT 3- HMA/2-CSTC/4-CSBC 5 1/2' CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER EDMONDS STD DETAIL E213 ® CONCRETE PAVEMENT 6'CONC/6-CSBC TYPE 'A' CURB AND GUTTER PER EDMONDS STD DETAIL E28 VERTICAL CURB PER EDMONDS STD DETAIL E2.10 ; dC08ll el l 0>�� 71 COLUMRIA I FLOOR 4 SEATTLO WA 9404 (20E) 441.41 S 1 OFFICE (200 W-0418 FAX 1231 NW HOYT I SUITE W0 PORTLAND OR 972o9 (503) 224 4032 OFFICE 1503) i24-091R FAX MAHLUM ARCHITECTS INC sEDssm Aven9®w4a sSaR sa3nl,, wASemL ia.wS.SESx •Nplf.mm S PRELIMINARY Edmonds SCHOOL DISTRICT Egtl, xluJenl learnl„R, nvery aqy' EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT MADRONA SCHOOL (ESD) 9300236TH ST SW, EDMONDS, WAER20 C CUP01 01NSHS CUP RESPONSE SI MARK DATES OSSCRIPTION ISSUE DATE: OSI1612016 ISSUE; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD PROIECTND,_ 1E0129 0 DRAWN BY: _ -GB CIEGIM Erg icolTic A 61E11. ARB MAN CW111 Packet Pg. 65 O i i 6 1y �� cT� ~m- -— STREET SW 236TH - = - 17 - - - - ------- R ;. .. _-.. �� ram-+ � '� �ryC .• . ''� r, �.o"icc ..• .'�? .k �/ ' I µ: �f��'�l �,� &�}'y�,- �.,��•,�• .�.'�n J� � I Ilia ear '=i' , •, .. - '-• _ �a '.i . • �: r., 11 �I •�;•�1 - :fir.•.:._'.:.•.::+::.- :•.,:• ::;�__�:::;:,.'•' � � ' _. �....�:...::.... i': i.:.:. 1 —71 Ij i ti. g :E : :::•.•:•:•_ :• :.:.. 39 .1 r� �o I V n W CD rTF V oR r1e g x?G? x S oilimN~,mEaz. zu oDFx'zo:10 i5 �FoSos r 's� rt om SOH IDDS 335 - ]Nll HDiVW 0 0 3 i0 0 � FORK o � z - F S - �0 n °s I Y 3 H n o c0 y 3 3 F o O miy e z m O z = O qrL `O3�Z } z v �r d v_ o 3 6� Y���r /1ol Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) 2 e S 6 0 n D G PEfl ECDC 2 Dl3 D3DD NDT 7D. EXISTING MATURE EST EXII E BUFFERING REQUINEMENTSS - -_ r I- oAAClM . . t F„ .. II r rrniw :. .-..- t WILL COVERE VERD } - D 1 + t _ _ I I I t L + T]RE rArA1gVCANi6TERF�O PLAY A. I 7!i 13 BILFn7for RLLru1�ED RX11Nq j - BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS SlaS I I I I ' t r 2 ORNAMENTAL FENCES AND GATES. 4,Y7' --- - nr,sSEngcH lLEGEND PLO1 -TW ABTA i1Nd, SAND BOX, SMALL CLIMBER AND 1l1 - W{iYS12CACING IAIIPLAY 4 TREES ROCKS TREES, gOCNS AND LOGS ON fi"DEPTH WOOD CHIPS 3j PLANTING AREA 5 ryDµ' { � LAWN AREA/PIAYfIELO L.�. BIDRETENTION AREA 3 -}� IAAR � GEOBLO[K FIRE ACCESS IxINgLTE }A1AUFN1 I{ { ASPHALT PAVEMENT III SEAT WALL -FE" HEIGHT 1 r-0 -0 I l4j 1 i l I. I t I 1 I L TYRE IN 2013 DTO D N F[x 2013 DTO D NFIT REQUIRED EXISTING MATURE FOREST E%[EELS BUFFERING RECRORE-FITS 1 - � 1 rut ,. al--,IWI 11 ' 11 EXISTING TRAIL T TL E {. 1 • T� IMVFI4MI L' 1 j CODE REQUIREMENTS I.�U1D ITRINyO CODE SECTION DESCRIPTION REQUIRED PER PROVIDED CODE ' OFF STREET PARKING REGULATIONS f I STAr 15 1UDI I ECDC 11 SPACES PER IUD STUDENTS; FUTURE STUDENT GS ]25TALL5 IINICLQ '•ill( .f tV 171ORDSOMl CAPAC_f1Y: 650 STUDENTS DPI, F LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING STANDARDS r ALLMIA011NG . SMUT TREES AIId15THER PER CITY MET BY E%ISTI SIG1 ECDC 18850101AHpIG111NGVIII[iTS SHAM 90NI RM TO 4 ^�- r �11Gf STREET'TR(L PLAN STREETPLAN FOREST BUFFER Li 1i7.75.' ' — 3 4 TREES SNALL BE DECIDUOUS AND PLANRED AT25 FT D C AND THE TRUNK SHALL BE FREE OF ECDC BRANCHES BELOW SIX FTIN I IEIGIRE PLANT IAIT2FY41lL6rOp 20 13 030 D MATERIALS WHICHWILL CDVERTHEGROUND FOREST BUFFER WITHIN THREE Y—S, AND WHICH WILL NOT EKCTEDTIIREEANDONE HALFnUllft•OpRT. 1 ECDC PLANTING IN SURFACE PARKING AREAS: 9B 3,430SF IL163 SF 2013030E STALLS 035 SF OF 11NTING/STALL IMAIN LOT) ECDC TREES IN SURFM PARKING AREAS: 1TREE/150 2D13D30f SF OF RED PEA" NG AREA (MAIN LOU) 23 TREES 28 TREES 1 PLANTING IN SURFACE PARKING AREAS: 21 ECDC STALLS@1B SF OFPUNTING/STALL (BLS LOOP 378 SF MET BY EXISTING 2013,030E LDT) FOREST BUFFER ECDC TREES IN SURFACE PARKING AREAS: ITREE/1. MET BY EXISTING 2013030E SF OF TREE,PLANTING AREA IBDS LOOP LOT) 3TREES FORESTBUFFER S 1 l a mahlum 71 COLUMBIA I FLOOR A fMTTAR WA 1"104 (206)44:_4151 OFFICE E (206)44_0478 FAX 1231 NW HOYT I SUITE 102 /OUTLAND OR V346 (503)224.4032 OFFICE (503)224.091B FAX MAHLUM ARCHITECTS INC CASCADE DESIGAI COLLAXODATIVE LONIM, - . F,I.AfF>a,.l 11C7 V. A" 1N4I. Bq —M HKS nM ILL4101tr44rf.4Ftl�r�rl..nlr D RnT e� 4= wlf Edmonds SCHOOL IT,, 15LIT IrR.. Y�a,I EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT MADRONA SCHOOL(ESD) 9300 236TH ST. SW, EDMONDS, WA 9B020 6 B MARK DATE CE 4RMTm ISsuE DATE: '112512011 IBBUE: CONDITIONALUSEPERMITI ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD roill"TROF pl5a= DRAWNIOn !F dli nrn ..... .l« A SITE PLAN L-101 Packet Pg. 67 a> c� f0 Q O O O t U tC C O L CR C M CD N C s ci R 3 0 a m a N O O to CD N Z J a U fC El 1 2 1 1 I GENERAL SITE NOTES ,. rs+[.rwuugrrratn.nm,5>�x.wan.P 6.1.a 2 -- _ ----- ----------- 1 1N1�{Iyr OUTDOOR AGE ` 1 f OVEAWING R' I ABOVE cLTYERED Pur 1 FLOOR PLAN - COVERED PLAY g W - nNT:F•4pg0 Wirt 4YJ(T, 70 NA7yR(TyLOrvl " grlct lnw7u�gwRln li 1 E2 SOUTH ELEVATION - COVERED PLAY E3 WEST ELEVATION ELEVATION - COVERED PLAY 2 LDI7LR/C7[II NY[LAY7IEYILOR51W01ALLQ4TMNLIRI GRE 4rL1.LO BE r4.4174AV27A7 M,rAnF SP 9RAK1lA>W1K2i OF WIIEriU�1RK� ]. P6Ov�ivLOYE>yuMLOkAMMYf11PY A.lD•A. 4 rR•KrL9•AEuarAann9Lrrl•n nw.l. "ErL..DuugnDwrrgw,rum uevA,ero1 mrraM PP mEaaw o4M>a.n NITEIIYLa wtsanPnrm nF NrnEO. 5. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, OIMENSpNS ONSTIE PLAN ARE TO FACE OF CURBB FMERIOR FACEOF BUIU7ING FOUNDATpNs PND GRID LWES INDI W� IRED STRUNG AND SIANGE REFER TO CI IPINGANDS AN REFER TO CIVIL DRAW IIJCS FGR FDC AND PM LOV TIONS 9214D AVE.W - i _ - - _ _ • -. - _- — __ _— — I 1� I - �n.rlRSraewlte.uHc ------71 - -- -- i EiWI.4:9.1P•Aa fOlY G "'�-"-- }I I I 93RD�VE. Wj .. I I. ` E•i� • �TT.sgEllcE 7LW1.901.[I.� �� ! _ OD�p4DWLSwrATHrwE `k ll POSEDMONDMENTSICTI F a I I • INTFANAILYILL INATED, J PROGRAMMA&-E, WUBIESpED • ELECTRONICR—R-BOARD. J 94TH AVE.W BUILNDINC PERMIT AND 13 O IrN 1 1 • DEBC 0FTHESU&IECT SIGN REVIEW. I f �I 1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN H Wl- mahlum 71 COLUMBIA I FLOOR 4 iBATTLII WA 98104 (206)441.4151 OFFICE E 44H4•1.041b FA 1231 NW HOYT I SUITE 102 PORTLANO OR 97209 (SO])224-4032 OFFICE IS 3)224.0918 FAX MAHLUM ARCHITECTS INC D i` 9559 REGISTERED ' CT Onv ou raa � Edmonds SCHOOL DISTRICT FaTh Hudenl Ieaming, every dayl EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT MADRONA SCHOOL REPLACEMENT 0300 236TH ST. SW, EDMONDS, WA 96020 ZONE KEYPLAN CUP 0725H6 CUPRESPONSE01 AMRK DATE DESCRIP77ON SSBUE DATE 0712512016 DINE CONDITIONAL USE PERU TI ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD [RMCTA0. . p15917.Op OLLIW fI: -AIIFM GKR4Ip BY RR '• ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN A-101 Packet Pg. 68 2 D D 3 0i 11)�M,1RftLL RCi EFl Ip PAD MOUN-D HEAT PUMP -ADD ALTERNATE L� ri .rf0.lCx WNNAB _ __ IIyII -------------- --------------- u; i� IIrr r rmw � u G wDFIEAaa i -6 F q— �J 75A SEE AtlA.123— v• ri r gff 1I see .ter KLl- 1:01 _ :ccEen 1 Al FLOOR PLAN - OVERALL - I m 1z al •E.YFa- - mahlum TI COLUMBIA I FLOOR 4 SSATTG II WA96101 12061 4414151 OFFICE (2061441-047IT FAX 1231 NW HOYT I SUITE 102 "Olift"o OG 447 B7 150312204032 OFF ICE 15031224091E FAX MAHLUM ARCHITECTS INC ... ... .. ..... 1 REGMTEM _ D � •;� bi 1 EC - — — — — OAVI E0U111, , } G1flN o a • L-- -- ——L----- ' —•- ---------{—— �- -------------- -- --- — --- 1- r------------- ^ � "C. sEEIi1wII4 cAAn,GEFnF11 1 rr - t 1 I I +. I 1 7ti oho 1 i 1 1 i I 1 Tw Tw ' Tw I Tw 1 — — 1- I I ` L rxiE2Fr°ORiRxiaeF n - -- � DDrat�aTrox4lHrxe �•nt xla LJ LJ wih 4 Edmonds SCHOOL DISTRICT Ea. slutlen! Ieaming. every d,l EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT MADRONA SCHOOL REPLACEMENT 9300 236TH ST. SW, EDMONDS, WA 96020 "e d ZONE KEYPLAN M CUPID —E110 CUPRESPCNBEDI MARK DATE DE-RIETKIN LSSUEMTE 07P2512016 LSSUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ERoJBF.NB: 10141.17.Q9 BBAIIBLR "M cxEOKm ev: TK FLOOR PLAN -OVERALL Packet Pg. 69 a•.a E CL 0 0 t u In R c 0 C� C M N c N s ci R r R 3 0 d R m a N 0 0 to r 0 N Z J a r d U fC is El 1 3 5 6.1.a lk _ r-f SE�N1�0.-1�1-----------------r rrr rrw ww---_ _ ----rrrr rr.rrr sEEA1/0.-1R] T ❑ ❑ ❑ �] ❑ xwE �--- xcgi�fBmpla;H6cF --� , r Al ROOF PLAN - OVERALL LDPENTDCdIPTVAPD �❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ �. ❑ � sHYNGM-TYP. 1 ww----------T------- ---- -------------------------------------------- 1 I 1 1 1 I (aY lrtnca�.awasn � 1 .! , ` MDdFlEO sfNMEN POOF-TYP. 1 =fEl 11 0 13�1 1 1 I r I I 1 _ 1 i 1 I 1 — 1 I 1 1 ¢1� ale 1 1 1 A C A MONTH `I/ mahlum 71 COLUMBIA I FLOOR A 9BRrvL0 W" 9110i (206) 411i151 OFFICE 42:6) 441.0478 FAX 1231 NW NOYT I SUITE 102 RO#YLAND OR 97190 IS03)224-1032 OFFICE IS03) 221.0910 FAX MAHLUM ARCHITECTS INC 8559 REGISTERED cr DW 011 Groh Edmonds SCHOOL DISTRICT Eedl uudenllaambx, every EaYI EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT MADRONASCHOOL REPLACEMENT B30O 236TH ST. SW, EDMDNDS, WA 996011 A� I © C H n LJ ZONE KEYPLAN MaN weBaepsmx WUEDAM OB25 D16 USUE FIM �OFgNRLUSEPERWT/ ARCHffMWRALDESIGN BOARD 7110 TN0.. .?01507�w ORSWx1T; AMM e TK ROOF PUN -OVERALL A-113 11 Packet Pg. 70 1 I 0 mahlum \� 0.,75INCH METAL PIATE PANEI wAH FXFOSEDFA6TENER 71 COLOMBIA I FLOOR SSATTLS WA 911104 pYFB 'WALLPANELS F Boa OD AEPGPAN. PRESTIGE (20fi) I �AI 120fi)-0AAA10478151 OFFCE FAX SERIEB-VARIABLE REVEAL ©NtlN HB31OEe FRERCENENF 1231 NW HOYT I SUITE 102 PDRTLAND OR 97209 B 0.D.OFSS CEIIiMT 1503122<-d032 OFFICE cF.11aaIY7 (503122A-L1918 FAX NNNYJ50IATE0 p�OLr aRTEppN:L VMILIICM SYBIEN CR OAHIGH71AVr WAONMLL MAHLUM ARCHITECTS INC I I I -LATE _ e ti n F LE EL 1V A FDA ��,• 1 .... _ .:. ... PlpI I I I I LEYF.'L 012. 107-4 ` SOUTH ELEVATION 1{ � 13 12 :ii' ;iGl . ►i J a6 ] I [ 7 1 O �� 00 1T EAST ELEVATION -.. NORTH ELEVATION n F }'•S7Y 2 _ GYM RpGF_� TOP PLATE ■: , i1P a — _�1dd4�m.ti LEvr=gar ffl - Edmonds SCHOOL DISTRICT EZ ,a­l.—B —, my. EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT MADRONASCHOOL REPLACEMENT 93W 236TH ST. SW. EDMONDS. WA 9BDP0 I 11 . .... ..... ME77AN,• _ITI D=� . .... --........ --- .. . I LE, 9B•-d MARK MW DESCRIRNIN IMMEMM 07P292D,6 MBUE: CONDITIONALUSEPERMITI ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD PRDEEM.. m15917110 oIrll,li,L� xpIEM CIBI®BY: TK A ERTERNOR ELEVATIONS E CL 0 0 u cn R C 0 fC M r N N s V r R t 3 L 0 a m L R co W a r` CV 0 0 T" T C7 CV Z J a r C. a� E t U !4 El �I.. A-212 Packet Pg. 171 — 3 i MATERIALS amaD BRICK VENEER 41.INCH MEFA _PANEL WII11 H]DUS®FA51E1ER Lll l[' I!11 1pALHpILLPANEIs AEPSPAN. PNESNGE SERIES-VARIARf£REVEAL �J HIGH DENSITY FIBER CEMENT SCARD CEMBOMT CEADRIT TR TICSNT POLYCARSONATE PANEL WALLI,GHT SYSTEM D 00: CPI DAYfJG.4RNG, OUAOWAll (D o o o 7 ... ..... ...:.— _— --_ — 11 ff ' TOPPLATE METAL RAZE CLADDING WEATIERINGSTMLCIADGATE WITH CUSTOM PERFORATED PATTERN D1 NORTH ELEVATION - LC 14 13 12 II 10 .i�.i D (DO o 1+ 1 11 1 I l l — —-:s:=::—_.... I LL LU L4EVEL_Q± ti G1 EAST ELEVATION - CIRCULATION a o o a o (D .... EDE dill S1 SOUTH ELEVATION -COURTYARD IIL TOP PLATE A LEYFi Q,. i WEST ELEVATION -CIRCULATION Al 6.1.a mahlum 71 COLUMBIA I FLOOR ssATTLY wA 9s LQ2 12061441-4I51 OFFICE E (206)441-0478 FAX 1231 NW HOYT I SUITE 102 PORTLAND OR 97209 150312244032 OFFICE (50312240918 FAX MAHLUM ARCHITECTS INC 8559 REGESTERED cr Dn Qu . rorr , Edmonds SCHOOL DISTRICT Ferlt Au4enl laamMB, even earl EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT MADRONASCHOOL REPLACEMENT 9300 236TH SE SW, EDMONDS, WA 96020 ZONE KEYPLAN FMRK DATE pgSl� I65VEMTE 0712512016 ISSUE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MIA=3RK. jR.I$1.4,AR CNHMKM BY. .--- TK EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-213 Packet Pg. 72 I 7 4 6.1.a E D I C B 92NO AVE. W N —s•PaNE BNO PUD^ �•E._ ' 1 ' I IEE P3 Lam'' LITT P3 — yue�a;P _ Re I.�4��.'.i1j .�� ' 1...�hl. J J L 1jLLhw3rr�4 J , -. nc ruI II''""11 aaC'�---��� FENaNc P. P3B •L1J• Lid O _ — _ PR(tPOSEO J •i L tEREC?'.>Y V. F! O NPNanrtNL E..1 `L�XaWDruE`[wHT a WITI1/FIE,DWiAar rLNlWrEal ]HwtiL aaE 2P-0'. •k .tiv +'i 31NaNliplOCr aoSE+awre . eE,aSKAini>tiErr7.wr91sNm 1r 94TH AVE W USIONaFxN EIS euS><cT - DB9ry 144,611, ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN 1 2 4 F2 mahlum 71 COLUMBIA I FLOOR 4 B\ATTLN WA 98104 120441.4151 OFFICE E I.:: 41.0478 FAX 034 72V1 NO" 1 S9a13 rot PORTLAND OR 97209 1503) 22"T OFF 11.11224.091: FAX MAHLUM ARCHITECTS INC D Edmonds SCHOOL DISTRICT Each a1uWMNrtnME, enrydW EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT MADRONASCHOOL REPLACEMENT 9300 236TH ST. SW, EDMONDS, WA 9802 L' A C 1J ZONE KEYPLAN CUP01 07/25116 CUP RESPONSE 01 (Q litl.l Mal NK� +�+ 1BBuE0AfE: 07/25/2016 ISSUE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD FAwECr HO; 3U 15073.00 DBAwN BY: AS/RSIBN CHECKED BY: MFIAB A ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN NORTH � E-1 0 1 u Packet Pg. 73 u ■ 6.1.a 4 A H I 00 00 as ae ao 00 00 00 00 00 0o as a0 00 00 00 00 Do 00 00 0o as o0 0a o0 0o ao 00 oa 0a no as o0 on oo 00 oa ao 00 0o as as 00 00 Do 00 00 on o0 on ao 00 00 00 0o 00 00 00 0a oa a.0 00 0a o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 oa as 00 00 00 00 00 01 in on no 00 00 11 on 00 00 00 on as ao 10 00 00 on 01 a0 0o 10 01 10 oa o0 0o aD no oe on eo 00 e0 as oD a0 Do 00 00 10 00 01 Do 00 c0 00 00 00 00 ea as 90 10 00 01 as 00 on Do 00 00 oe 10 00 00 01 00 00 co 00 e0 01 as ao 10 10 no 00 00 10 e. Ed -led I. rr 1. I. /o 04 0o no 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0o ao Do 00 oa o0 00 Do Do ao 00 00 oa o0 00 00 00 0o DD o0 oa o0 00 oa as Do oe o0 00 0o Do 0o as o0 oe ao 00 oa Do 00 00 00 oa o0 0o as oo Oo oc o0 00 00 oa oa as oo as DD o.e oa oe 1. o Ea vv H a as oa ao ao 0o Da 00 00 0o ao 00 00 0a oo D.a 0o a0 00 00 00 00 0a o0 ao 00 00 oa 00 00 00 00 oa o0 0o Do 00 oa o0 0a 00 00 00 oa a0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0o a0 ao 00 00 00 00 00 ao o.a o0 Da 00 00 Do 00 00 0 1 No Da as r0 •I ID H H un .v a{ u a► N N p r0 n4 a0 H I\ N N w w N Dr +1 �+ +9 a¢ 9. Od av nA ::do /0 Or w q 4. N /. II to as n w s. • . I. 1. M w 00 H n 4. •I of N N so .• +1 so sr so {a .1 !° IR -y. 1. I 1 f . IO o f H ev v� a rI r• M w M �0 fI rr .�► Y :r N Oa 9 er N N u .. r .... n M q n N q s1 A. n y aA Iv n N LL u n •1 dr 00 9D w e0 •f w •r Pp ¢p .v w a. +s .I rI .e as a0. '�+�I - Lf 1 I w + ev ar. r+ •r be .. [ /i OI .I s. r/ H N y +a [[ xa rl of a0 rh .+ Ia w N /► ro or N N rr Ap ►r I{ s. ee N N Ie M N II Ir sa N 04 /1 1/ N N N y {¢ of rl la .. 11 la �p .I oo eI , a, •.. +I �r N 9D vI •[ r1 r. IO ►v to o0 vo vA Ir rI x• N H el no e• r1 al r9 Ir .> n N .1 I. I. N vo w If rr r{ n N Iv vv n n Ae w n II !v H to ea Do 4! 4r to v{ e{ I. M IY N II II la }s 00 00 0, a ■/ ram• •1 I 1.{p .. ao o.o av on rA • 9..9 av II vI c1 av rr oe as ae 0a o0 00 00 Do 00 00 00 00 00 oa o0 00 D0 00 00 0o ao 00 00 00 00 00 oa o0 0.0 00 00 00 00 oa Da oe o0 00 $. 00 •1 vA • ! H •• C1,@v o o Do 00 'a no 0 0 0 00 oa o0 00 00 0o D-o 0o Do 0o DD Da a0 oa o0 0 00 0o ao 00 00 00 o Oo 0o a o 00 oe on 10 01 no 00 00 on oo Do Do on 10 00 I.a 00 00 0o Do Do 0o ao ip DO N e, OI +I . II Ir a 1, _ v o 0 o If Ed. Ov vv 1. ra w •a w so w }ll .. T. 00 0D o0 0, o� -yI . e. 00 00 o0'ea o0-¢0 00 00 0.a 00 00 oo-0n 0n ao- o oa o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0o a 64 00 00 00 00 oc 00 00 00 00 ov ca 1 n •. M, 1 .fp D o0 0.0 va 4 rI of I vs a o aI ¢¢ aA ra :1 I rr IN i.•..-L•aa•=.•+'^-u---•---•°i-• a o0 oI ro a► N a+ 01 r �+ 1r , , }' oo ao ao 00 0.0 oa Do 0o Do 0o as o0 00 on o0 0o Do on o0 oa o0 oa o0 00 00 00 00 I. 0o a0 0. as 00 00 00 9) rr oo eo r+ N .o /e I. " N ov vo w of M to M e to w or .a .a Is 00 !� ++.+ H be II eI rI I 1 qIN. an to rr II w vv Is ra la rr H II w I. va I. / N or oY rI be x. rI ¢ .o ea .a N Ie w Ov ¢ v far VI'1. 1, 04 N N 00 00 0o v. ev Do ++ [• x• re av I. oe Do 00 00 00 0o ao .o ry to r1 1. N N N \I [• a• Ie {v ooa oo co as o0 0o r. o r. I. ,. 1 1 9. N o0 0o Dow N e. Ir M M w ad 00 Do 00 00 00 00 oa as De ed rI eA •Ia r+ er rr r1 u II • dl o 0o ao oa o0 00 00 1{ a D o0 0o y oc o0 0 0 0o an 00 00 00 00 on In - 00 0o f 1oYr it vv M •! N N •r 'lls it I1gR\vIA,NII p. as e1 w [e rs a. r r .r re ! I L a. W +r 0o ao 00 ee ee e. r, ee c. ra re II o0 0a 00 oa o0 00 Do ee Dv e1 x1 N .p ea s9 u u N N /r ar w a e. fa aI AI oI oo 01 o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 no 0 e { a+ n el II r[ re w r r1 a ; .+ I e1 IA.N oe DD DD De ed 1. N Io x1 .r n.+ oo Da Da as ao as oa 00 Da ee I eA No re vI Ad v of oo w v. oo Is Ed a I 1 ae v'el N j so + a o0 oa H oo Do oa 00 .9 fa a ux a al N 00 DD o0 00 00 0o ao 00 0o do Df II 1►>b w ev w er Iv I/ n OD q H M 11 w ! oe o0 00 0a 0.0 0o co-oo 00 00 00 oa }a D D o0 0 u 9 DD ap so do M Ie a ev of t 14 ° I f. 4TF no oa Is oe Do 00 Do a. ar rr re Ia rT w 00 oa oo Da o0 00 00 00 10 w s. e1 H .1 n n n n n •. • •I n w ry •• .. .. o a os v w rr As °° ov n •o ra w r1 so �o o ad Ir. N.It Ed !r I. n I I I Do a0 IA Is AI so v. 4a I. I w I •e vv D. oa ao oa oa o0 0o ae u N aA a r+ a ¢. ry eo vI .I of 1. i. 66 t► w o4 4¢ It a. o a .. .. re .v ° [, .. rf Is 1. .1 {q 'se DI oo nn {{ e+ .► N N 91 I' y A. •r +. I 0 00 00 10 00 10 Do 00 ++ +[ rr re ar .I ry vv .0 oa o0 oa o0 Do as v/ v/ ov +I N +• It cv H 00 00 00 00 0o Do 00 00 00 00 0 o + v9 or re N vv Id v1 a• •v •n AI re I o• N 1I 1• Ir �a H 1.1 v a D Yr rT ar • o 00 oa ao oe DD OD 0e 9+ v1 N ee e1 I. eI nv Da oo on no oo ao ao w •r a1 1I » w M • o 0o DD o0 00 oa ae oa oo as oo eI a • , . • • fe Ie a ea a .a •, w o/ D I+ er ee H N w v. u ° °fi ar N 11 r+ 11 K y ¢. ¢. a1 ae u u ve ev on a/ a er ar a. ee DD ea a+ ae aL a r• r. •e D+ .I ea a• 1► ►s ID AI .. w o 0. I vv + oa H as N N 1• n rI I I w 00 N I. H ae ea De +a q u e. u n ra .a N n [..1 1, ro ee Da a e1 I. Ii a1 N H q W /. sA N N tl w N M ar H Ir a D to H[ as N Iu rr ov y •a w II w aI II r -. A • a/! sA n n rI ra ev v. 9a v u u u ry to o9 ¢r H to aI to e9. M 09 es p{ •• 0a o0 00 oo 00 00 Da o0 0o II r0 as o➢ •0 aI oo fv a o 0. w H /¢ o0 I o.o 0o Do oa oa I pa oo c De oa a a0 a .e 19 .v 1 600 ..a no Do 00 .0 10 00 00 00 00 0o no 00 00 00 00 00 0o a0 ao ao 00 0o D� D, 0 0o D0 00 00 00 00 oa o. be cs .r ar u Do M o /v .v n ++ .• o.I w N °• Ir N .r of Do o al a el y M ro 9I . 1 .a I o0 0o a0 Da oo Do 00 00 00 00 00 on 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Do 00 00 0, D� D, D, o, 0� 00 oa o Do oa o o� er o .a e oa I rA Ir rr rr a a+ aI n 91 N At}e Do a a. 1{ H H u so M AI I11 D D I Ian Ir so N H so to 01 Do ea eI e1 N H N •v va N o1 0, of o, o0 00 0o µ 1 rI N I M o I. r.as [ 0 .0 00 00 00 oa oo as o0 0o Do 0o ao Dv II e1 N e1 r. vv I ♦t ♦ II II +I • .I IA .. •A ¢v 11 H r• H M II rI H ¢• II I I AI v} a 1"1 • I • iI a P. I.0o co oe e0 00 a as ao oa pr Dv . o+ 11 I• N y H IA ¢ { as H nr /Iva H A/ Aa 9v w Ov w !\ N y N I I IL . f Al be T •+.'v.l I .1 ' rbv 11. re a • ° II Iv a. • Ir .. •. II YA Op to oI is N H H IO .v rI r t1 I.la I, II Iv I If rl YI v►1•, I vI or N IA N N y ¢v ¢a H +e rI sI IE •1 Iv as .>' r. Ar u do N It ry " a ap• a. Is N �0 A• vv [. of N w n N M vv r l04. . vi ev ae or r. A• so ee ea a 1. r1 r .k • !a I •. /1 v1 al • • ,! DD Iu va vo Av rr r+ r► oI M .o v0 II .I N II Ae DD 4. e4 as H IN N re ¢e J . I +' 1. n . •I Ia .. II .I Dv ve n AI a1 II . Iv• 1 0 I.1 1. . 1. 11 11 !I IN IN Is I. 1. Ir • .[ aran III, [ a o0 00 er - I. DI I. AI I. da rI rn 1 I .I n H n .I w 1 _ 1 r e vI l0 �, �e vo 11 ,v 14 ,v 10 „ 11 ,. I0 �. sI rI , yr .a v. vv .. aq•T. Ir La - -- • •. �: ro 0o v. ¢• ° ol w {. Lr R [ oI ¢' 1pJ Il q u H b 0 v n [. [. al YA ° 11 Ia I I ,• . iT . i nI h I yD +e rr .. . . N No r qar .1 Or • v .. of .. ao ao 0o N 44 94 r. *- ,'i + o[ [e u w N }s to N+: •. M w n e. M I I a - u L a + 1. I • vJ a 1/ + ,r 1r u . , ... [ a ov ox r o0 0o ao o.a as 0 oa oo A{ w t1/ o ao 0o D.o of •I y n 1r 11 y II Ir •1 .` I 1 ►i n 1r 1. I. I. n . u q u ,a u n n y 1 + w 4.. as •I •n4+rI Ia ., J, a II RIau 1., 1. Ie !� FI Ir uI ., [ 0 DD as o0 0o ao 00 on on - oa N o ao 00 o.1 of Di oz v 3�1 . b . . IN I r! 01 v . r , ; .. AI ¢• 11 eI re. u.Ia n eI AI I Is u I . I r`rI n r1 Ie I I n FI n ' L. It as ra P. r1 fA It.. I , I. I IA aI ¢ o0 00 00 00 0o u0 I. o ► n q IT F, n I e! H I •• vk Is 1, r� I W n 'R-srN'v¢ S o0 00 oa I0 00 on Do I Lr I/ I. I I , �. 0I rI u-n rI r I fo as :a Ie zb zv :o_ �t a_: _,_ _,_ _ v •r a +a r r+ /. rD vo a¢ w oI re n+ rr N 'vI so .I .v r II IN 1 II a �qI 1I v, a �1 z, ,v �z 11 ,e :. z. , 1. a ra 1 y IN eI N w ea o 19 e+ I+ • I I vl • • • az 9 i , •� .s r 1 N OD L/ as e1 44 N.r) I. !• I. , [¢ ar Ir ¢[ IA 1x I• •. 1 ►I L II n • f. Is • , u ¢I a. ..r 14 5t �. 3•Iv a •r I. I Ia so .1 IA I. rs p H aI f I • N N .1 I> er r1 va ar re r • aI • /.. aJ 1 f [. . v0 rs o1 AI H sA Da It H Ia w m v N .r 01 Is Is e1 IN r. s+ ee rI r1 a II e..r .. De a I. rr .r e1 1 • N .A u u a} a! a 61 • H [ IV r3 a 9a 9v ar rl to Io 0e av oo N•�1 be 1Y w y to • ¢,a . er N N N fr .1 a r] . .r DI . I rr M n N u II a/ s n 11 n rr I a� [ v a+ n.i. n 1, OD 10 a0 N 4. to o.? N w N .a ror .r Yr , \ N n .D v + , u Fc rx r : w n M rr No u u u H a1 I. v av 9I rr .• do Is .v R0 a n .1 vi w II do as .a as Ir "..a • ¢1 H . • la I. J1, .r Ir n I • p M 'f+ I. 11 . I. r. Is • I. Is u I. u I. I I. oe Is e. No I. to oa 40 41 a• oA ¢a: r/ .¢ n o +I. b tl .. rp a V • > , . 1 1 :� r4-TI . . II .. n M 1! I I pr ., .. a N I. yr +e n N n M I. rx 11 .. .I a. E el I a If -II I. . , D1 •e 1f. • d •• D. aD DI 0° 00 Oa N I f/ sv, r.., 9•. n n N n M Do '01 II II . ¢a a u v 9v ev v. v yr .I + w ro u u u Aq M w . W W aP 4r II .. n AI r a+ If Ia 1¢.1 r 1. t• 1 e e I v W .. •. aI w Do ee 9+ e+ IN I. ui • be.1. • I• y Ie fr w re w M Y .a r. N H • o v b Ir ry r v I . DD ae 9I I Iv • er ve b do 1. I. aJ• DA DO 00 I Na N. n rr 0a o0 00 a 00 00 00 00 00 00 0o Do 00 00 00 Da ie - _ ed_'w _ ... H a I. I +y I t H A ry oa Do an 1I +I • a va va 9v a av of r0 Do o> oe vn la •A del 00 0 0 D D Da o0 Do 00 oa 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0o a0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 oa ao N �N r. vD /1 - - - a► N ►D ee ov 9. a. x. x ra N aD 1+ se ra .. n oe w as +1 I. M 3 ••I M N y r9 . i. tl o 1\ H L. it w s1 q w N H ro q a0 av xr rI v[ s+ w y °. /I b N 91 .. 04 0a o. I. No N N ►e do Is n P +o I. Iv Ov It e1 YI I. IIr a or Io pA 1[ y 1 1 ee .+ n I. No av •o .a No 1. .1 .. oe vs a. ry .I a• 00 ao 0o ao oa 00 00 00 00 00 oa a0 00 00 00 00 00 0a Oo 00 00 0o ao as ao 00 00 oa o0 00 oa o0 ao 00 00 00 00 oa oo as 00 00 00 00 00 0a o0 00 0 00 00 00 00 oa oo • . x av .e rr o+ vI Yo ov ID to a¢ w a. Ac Da ry n v9 eI b oa ae ao Do DD o0 00 00 00 00 as 00 00 00 00 00 oa ao 00 00 0o ao a0 00 00 Do oa o0 00 oa o0 I I 00 00 00 00 oa o0 0a o0 oe o0 00 00 oa ao oc ao oa oo Da o0 0o q • n n n n II Do IS v AN N .. ' It :a [v N r9 °+ R u be r• .o I. N ...I Ir .a A H y ot. .. N u be a1 I. xI I. II r0 I. Is N sv a oD w so s/ H It No w vv v+ u N N n N ns H w N N N ►i'It M M I. H ro Iv fe •v nr ae DD ID Oe Oe et u m u aI to r/ a 01 Io oa La A9 aP w /I AA /a PD 49 ee pI •[ N N I. ev w vv n n H w y a\ N an rl u n n N n N w nv xs w In nI Ir to ae DI N ►I {0 1{ s{ N I:.Ia .+1 Be • •a Ia vv rD. N .e Do y I. of +I II 00 00 00 no co as no 0o Do DD ae oo Do 00 0o Do c0 00 0o m Iv u M I..1 !a I9 N da I. 00 0► H /► ee DD DD el N .M Oe•N ¢r M re sI rr ra es . w el •I oa w N da - rr 11. • fI e9 a Oa of •• /a ►o r0 DA .. I. as AI No N A. do a6.•p.A•. urp+..fa�¢.Af.A R.9A_pf 1, �f„)� �4-�!« �. 10 •!10 ee ee•sJ M.Ie •v aI v9 rI ev n .. •. I[ .a re /a .9 1. N I. Ia f. N w Ad If a► •1 I.6 .t w na be " M Ai yr vA No eI .r N 1 ie [I 11 In a it I. •0 Do .> a. 1. �„<e, .............................,..............-....._-..f-.._...---...-...... ••••••-•ri'tltl'tln'YYiX'41'>rf•►YYr•9a•MiFyI�Ie•►s-ab. 44.a•.6¢.¢a.3?.LN.AA.AB_99_ .i1[.!}..�T. !--- - 1. aI. L ^ O D 0J u O •U O� 6 ❑- n l ❑ ' mahlum 21 COLUMBIA I FLOOR 4 S RATTLE WA 98IDa ('Zf aat-d tzl OFFICE (20614a1.04TR FA% 1231 NW HOYT I SUITE 102 PORTLAND OR 97209 '5031214:1012 OFFICE (5031224 IR FA% MANLUM ARCHITECTS INC l Y111INUTZMAURO D Edmonds SCHOOL DISTRICT EICh F1uae011111 DR, ISly aayl EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT MADRONA SCHOOL(ESD) 9300 236TH ST. SW, EDMONDS, WA 98020 C e A t .1 C� pj!�. 11lAR MTN 91rCRNR411 RIBE GATE: 05/1612016 DBUE: CONORIONAL USE PERMITI ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD PH0"'mo__ _ 2015913.DO DRAWN". AB GIR951DIp:_ Als A SITE PLAN LIGHTING CALC e wT E-102 L 4 l Packet Pg. 74 6.1.a MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE Edmonds School District No. 15 Madrona School Replacement DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The proposed action is construction of a new Madrona School and demolition of the existing approximately 86,500 square -foot school building and related improvements (2,500 square foot covered play area, covered walkways, parking areas, and playground equipment). The site encompasses approximately 41 acres, which also hosts the former Woodway Elementary School. The new facility would consist of five new buildings for classrooms and one for the entry, administration, the gym, cafeteria, kitchen, library, and the school's music and science programs. Ball fields on site could remain a shared use with the City of Edmonds. The new school would have a 3,000 square foot covered play area and new play field where the existing school is located, and the existing track and field located in the southwestern portion of the site would be elongated to meet current International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) design standards. In addition, a new play area and covered play area would be located in the center of the upgraded track and field. As part of the project, there would also be improved parking and bus and automobile circulation, and a sidewalk would be added to the south side of 236t1i Street SW between the school's two existing driveways. In addition, significant new stor nwater management facilities would be provided. The size of the school building would be approximately 80,000 square feet. The proposed school would have capacity for 650 students and 80 teachers and staff, serving grades K-8 at the same enrollment and staffing levels as the existing Madrona K-8 program. The primary entrance would continue to be accessed from 236111 Street SW for students, staff, and visitors. The project would provide the same number of parking spaces that currently exist at the site (119), including five ADA spaces. Improvements to on -site circulation would include increased capacity for parent -vehicle and sehool-bus load/unload, which would provide additional spaces (up to 80 additional spaces) for evening and weekend event parking. Construction would begin in the spring of 2017 and be completed by the fall of 2018; the school would be available for occupancy July, 2018. The proposed action will require approval of a Project Design Review from City of :Edmonds along with associated pennits related to the building and grading permits from City of Edmonds. CITY OF EDMONDS FILE NUMBERS: PLN20160027 (Design Review), PLN20160028 (Conditional Use Permit for building area), PLN20160029 (Conditional Use Permit for building height) PROPONENT: Edmonds School District No. 15 LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: The new Madrona School at 9300 236th Street SW in Edmonds would replace the existing Madrona School on the same site. The Snohomish County Tax Parcel Number is 27033600404600. The legal description is "SEC 36 TWP 27 RGE 03RT-49) NE 1/4 OF SEI/4." LEAD AGENCY: ,Edmonds School District No. 15 The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment provided that the mitigation measures described in the June 2016 environmental checklist are incorporated as part of the project. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This determination assumes compliance with State law and Snohomish County and City of Edmonds ordinances related to general environmental protection including, but not limited to: earthwork, site utilities, access improvements, critical areas, and drainage. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public upon request. This determination is subject to the mitigation measures described in the June 2016 enviromnental checklist and shall be deemed conditions of approval of the lead agency's proposed action. Such conditions are considered binding and may not be altered by subsequent decisions unless a threshold determination is re -issued. Note. Issuance of this threshold determination does not constitute approval of the proposed action for construction. This proposal will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable City of Edmonds codes, which regulate development activities. Attachment 6 PLN20160027 Packet Pg. 75 6.1.a It is the policy of the District that, when undertaking an action involving the exercise of substantive SEPA authority, the District shall consider, as appropriate under the circumstances, the ramifications of such action as to one or more of the factors listed in Edmonds School District No. 15 Policy 9630, 7.0 SEPA and Agency Decisions. This Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2) and WAC 197-11-350. The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the published date below. Comments must be submitted in writing by July 1, 2016 to the Responsible Official as named below. The responsible official will reconsider the MDNS based on timely comments and may retain, modify, or, if significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the MDNS, if the MDNS is retained, it wil I be final after the expiration of the comment deadline. Responsible Official: Stewart Mhyre, Edmonds School District No. 15 Title: Executive Director of Business and Operations Address: Edmonds School District No. 15 20420 68fl' Avenue West Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Phone: (425) 431-7015 Issue Date: June] 7, 2016 , A There is no agency appeal for this determination. Mitigated Determination ofNon-Significance Madrona Elementary School Edmonds School District No. 15 Page 2 Packet Pg. 76 6.1.a Madrona School Replacement SEPA Checklist June 2016 PREPARED FOR: EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT 20420 68TH AVENUE WEST LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 PREPARED BY: ESA 5309 SHILSHOLE AVENUE NW, STE. 200 SEATTLE, WA 98107 Packet Pg. 77 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Replacement INTRODUCTION Edmonds School District 15 (the District) proposes to construct a new elementary school to replace the existing approximately 86,500 square foot Madrona School. The existing school was built in 1963 and is past its useful life, with outmoded civil, architectural, structural, mechanical, and electrical systems. In addition, the existing facility was designed as a Junior High School for grades 7, 8 and 9 and does not fit the non -graded K-8 style of education used at Madrona School. The non -graded program is comprised of multiage centers (classrooms) that span three grade levels, and each center houses two teachers and 54 students rather than the traditional classroom setup with one teacher and 20 to 30 students. The non -graded program houses approximately 650 students with 80 total teacher s and staff. The new school would reflect Madrona K-8's programmatic differences, meet new District -Wide Educational Specifications, and replace outdated infrastructure while working within the parameters of the existing site conditions. The project is funded by a Capital Construction Bond, approved by the voters in February 2014, and construction is slated for the spring of 2017. Construction of the new school facility would take approximately a year. An additional 4 months would be necessary to complete demolition of the existing school and complete sitework. The proposed new school facility would be constructed on the existing baseball field south of the existing school, approximately 80,000 square feet in size, include six new single -story buildings. Future student enrollment and staffing levels are expected to remain the same as existing levels. The new school would include five new buildings for classrooms and one for the entry, administration, the gym, cafeteria, kitchen, library, and the school's music and science programs. The new school would also have a 3,000 square foot covered play area and new play field where the existing school is located. As part of the project, there would also be improved parking and bus and automobile circulation and significant new stormwater management facilities. June 2016 Page i Packet Pg. 78 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Replacement TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ i ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST.........................................................................................................1 A. BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................ I .-. r B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS..............................................................................................4 c m E 1. Earth....................................................................................................................................4 U 2. Air.......................................................................................................................................6 Q- m 3. Water...................................................................................................................................8 0 0 4. Plants ................................... U) 5. Animals.............................................................................................................................12 ca 6. Energy and Natural Resources .................... ... 14 c 0 M 7. Environmental Health....................................................................................................... 15 M 8. Land and Shoreline Use.... ...................................... M CD v 9. Housing............................................................................................................................. 20.. r 10. Aesthetics .................... ............21 11. Light and Glare................................................................................................................. 21 m E t 12. Recreation .................. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation.................................................................................... 23 t 14. Transportation............................................................... .................................................... 26 3 15. Public Services .......................... ....... 29 0 a� 16. Utilities..............................................................................................................................29 L M C. SIGNATURE................................................................................................................................30 n m REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................................31 Q FIGURES...................................................................................................................................................35 ti N Figure 1: Project Vicinity O Figure 2: Project Area and Existing Facilities c N Z Figure 3: Topographic Map J a. Figure 4: Site Plan Concept June 2016 Page iii Packet Pg. 79 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Replacement ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of the proposed project, if applicable: Madrona School Replacement 2. Name of Applicant: Edmonds School District 15 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Taine Wilton Capital Projects Office 20420 68th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036 425-431-7172 4. Date checklist prepared: May 2016 5. Agency requesting checklist: Edmonds School District 15 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction of the new Madrona School is expected to begin in the spring of 2017. It is anticipated that construction of the new school would be completed by the fall of 2018. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No additions, expansion, or further activity is anticipated in the foreseeable future. The District may add relocatable classrooms (portables) to the site in the future. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Madrona K-8 School Project Tree Survey. American Forest Management. January 20, 2016. Madrona K-8 Topographic Survey. July 2015. June 2016 Page 1 Packet Pg. 80 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Replacement Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report, New Madrona K-8 Project, Shannon and Wilson, Inc. August 6, 2016. Preliminary Traffic and Access Review for Replacement. Edmonds School District — Madrona School. Heffron Transportation, Inc. March 9, 2016. Regulated Building Materials Assessment Report Madrona K-8 School, Edmonds School District, Edmonds, Washington. Terracon/Argus Pacific, Inc. September 30, 2015. Wetland and Stream Delineation Report New Madrona K-8 Project City of Edmonds, Washington. Shannon and Wilson, Inc. September 15, 2015. 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. There are no applications for other proposals that are pending for governmental approvals that directly affect the property. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known: State and regional agency aapprovals and permits that would be needed include: Asbestos/Demolition Notification (Department of Labor and Industries and Puget Sound Clean Air Agency) * NPDES Permit (Department of Ecology) Local agprovals and permits that would be needed include: ■ Building Permit • Conditional Use Permit • Critical Areas Checklist • Demolition Permit • Land Use Permit • Park Impact Fee • Plumbing and Mechanical Permit ■ Project Design Review ■ Right -of -Way Construction Permit Page 2 June 2016 Packet Pg. 81 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Replacement • Street Use Permit • Side Sewer Permit • Landscape Sprinkler Permit 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. The District proposes to construct a new elementary school to replace the existing approximately 86,500 square foot Madrona School. The new school would be located in the area of the site currently occupied by a baseball field, in the southeastern portion of the 40.78-acre site. The new school would be approximately 80,000 square feet and designed for 650 students and 80 total teachers and staff, maintaining current enrollment and staffing levels. The existing single -story school, built in 1963, would be demolished after construction of the new school is completed. The existing facility was designed as a Junior High School for grades 7, 8 and 9 and does not fit the non -graded K-8 style of education used at Madrona School (multiage centers that span three grade levels, with each center housing two teaches and 54 students). The new school would reflect the Madrona K-8 program, meet new District -Wide Educational Specifications, and replace outdated infrastructure, with improvements providing efficiency that allows enrollment and staffing to be maintained within a smaller school footprint. The new Madrona School would be a collection of single -story buildings connected by covered walkways (Figure 4). The southern portion of the new school would be comprised of five classroom buildings. The northern building would be comprised of administration; cafeteria; gymnasium; and music, library and science rooms. During construction, the two play areas would be removed. A new kindergarten play area would be located on the western side of the site, near the administrative building, including 3,000 square feet of covered play area. The open space left by removal of the existing school would be redeveloped into a new soccer field. The existing track and field located in the southwestern portion of the site would be elongated to meet current International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) track and field design standards with the play area and covered play located in the center. Staff and visitor parking would remain in the same location, as would the parent drop-off queue. However, the location of the bus drop-off queue would be redesigned so that it is parallel to the parent drop-off queue and has its own access to 236"' Street SW. A new servicelloading area would be constructed as part of the proposed improvements. It would share access to the site with the bus drop-off queue and would provide a sidewalk for pedestrians accessing the site. A new sidewalk would also be constructed between the two driveways on the school June 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 82 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School property as part of the proposed upgrades to improve pedestrian connectivity to the school. New signage for the school would also be provided in the form of a digital sign near the street. In addition, new stormwater management facilities would be implemented as part of the proposed improvements. 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. Madrona School is located at 9300 236th Street SW in Edmonds, Washington (Figure 1). The property is shared with the former Woodway Elementary School to the west, and is adjacent to 236th Street SW to the north and residential properties to the east and south (Figure 2). The site is located in the SE quarter of Section 36, Township 27 North, Range 3 East, Willamette Meridian. The site is located on Tax Assessor Parcel 27033600404600. The legal description is: "SEC 36 TWP 27 RGE 03RT-49) NE 1/4 OF SEl/4." Figure 3 shows a topographic map of the Madrona School site. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Page 4 1. Earth a. General description of the site (underline): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other The site topography is characterized by flat areas surrounded by steep slopes. The school is bordered by vegetated hills with a 30 percent slope descending to the west, a 40 percent decline to the east, and a 13 percent decline to the south. The northern section of the site, occupied by the existing school and parking lot, is relatively flat. The parking lot is at - grade with the track and field area, while the school site gradually increases in elevation to the south to meet the play area and baseball field. A steep slope (over 40 percent) between the two open spaces separates the difference in grade between the baseball field on the upper plateau and the track and field area on the lower plateau. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slope on the site is located between the two sports fields on the southern end of the property (which can be up to 60 percent), followed June 2016 Packet Pg. 83 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School by the ravines bordering the eastern and western sides of the property (which are between 30 and 40 percent depending on the location). C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. The project site is situated on a ridge underlain by Quaternary Vashon till consisting of silty sand with variable gravel and cobble content (Shannon &Wilson, Inc., 2015a). The glacial till is underlain by advanced outwash material at about 80 feet below the surface. The majority of the property is comprised of Alderwood-Urban land complex (2 to 8 percent slopes). However, the ravine between Madrona School and the former Woodway Elementary is comprised of Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (15 to 30 percent slopes), and there is a 5.6-acre portion of the southeastern corner of the school property that is comprised of Alderwood-Urban land complex (8 to 15 percent slopes) (USDA, 2016). No agricultural land of long-term commercial significance is located within the project area. d. Are there any surface indications or a history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Steep slopes surround the project area. There is some evidence of erosion on the western side of the site where stormwater runoff has flowed down the western ravine. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities of total affected area of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Excavation and grading would be required for utility extension, construction of stormwater improvements, construction of the new school, and track and field improvements, totaling in 16,800 net cubic yards of export. Excavated material would consist of non-native fill/gravels and native soil. All excavated material would be hauled off site and disposed of at an approved offsite location. Approximately 6,200 cubic yards of imported gravel fill material would be required under proposed pavements and building slabs. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. The proposed project is surrounded by steep slopes; therefore, the erosion potential is high. In order to meet current Ecology Construction Storm Water General Permit requirements, a properly developed and maintained June 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 84 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Replacement Page 6 erosion control plan with best management practices (BMPs) would be required to control erosion during construction of the proposed project. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Under the proposed project, approximately 3 acres of new impervious surfaces would be introduced. However, after the existing school is demolished, up to 2 acres of land could be returned to pervious surface. Currently, 19.5 percent of the site is covered with impervious surface. After construction, 26 percent of the site would be covered with impervious surface. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Temporary erosion and sedimentation control BMPs would be installed to minimize erosion during construction. BMPs specific to the site and project would be specified by the District in the construction contract documents that the construction contractor would be required to implement. BMPs would include but not be limited to: ■ Maintaining cover measures atop disturbed ground, including erosion control matting, plastic sheeting, straw mulch, crushed rock or recycled concrete, or mature hydroseed; ■ Providing storm drain inlet protection; ■ Routing surface water away from work areas and steep slopes; ■ Keeping staging areas and travel areas clean and free of track -out (materials adhering to motor vehicles and inadvertently carried out of the project site to a staging area or paved road); ■ Covering work areas and stockpiled soils when not in use; and ■ Completing earthwork during dry weather and site conditions if possible. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction, there would be a small increase in exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment, and a temporary increase in June 2016 Packet Pg. 85 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School fugitive dust due to earthwork for the project. The most noticeable increase in emissions and fugitive dust would occur during demolition and earthwork. Exhaust emissions would also be generated from construction employee and equipment traffic to and from the site. The new school would include a kitchen area, but basic food production would be done at a central kitchen and delivered to the site. Any odors from food warming or other future kitchen uses would be controlled with the use of exhaust hoods. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. There are no offsite sources of emissions or odors that would affect the proposed project. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. The contractor chosen for the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) regulations, including: • Regulation I, Section 9.11 prohibiting the emission of air contaminants that would or could be injurious to human health, plant or animal life, or property; and • Regulation I, Section 9.15 prohibiting the emission of fugitive dust, unless reasonable precautions are employed to minimize the emissions. BMPs specific to the site and project would be specified by the District in the construction contract documents that the construction contractor would be required to implement. To reduce fugitive dust emissions from trucks leaving the site, the contractor would be required to establish wheel - cleaning stations at the exits from the site and implement dust control watering on onsite construction haul routes. Streets would be regularly swept to remove dust and debris from construction vehicles. The contractor will also be required to maintain construction equipment in good working order to prevent increased exhaust emissions. See also the mitigation listed in section B.l.h, above. June 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 86 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Page 8 3. Water a. Surface Water: 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. Three wetlands are located on the project site: Wetland A, Wetland B, and Wetland C (Figure 3). Wetland A (0.02 acre) is a Category IV palustrine scrubshrub wetland, Wetland B (0.4 acre) is a Category III palustrine forested wetland, and Wetland C (0.1 acre) is a Category IV palustrine emergent wetland (Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2015b). Wetland A is located on the wooded slope between the former Woodway School and Madrona School. Hydrology in Wetland A is likely supported by a combination of storm drain discharges from the upgradient storm drain outfalls and groundwater. Wetland B is located in the wooded ravine on the eastern property boundary. Hydrology in Wetland B is likely supported by surface flow from the surrounding ravine, the storm drain inputs from the school, and a seasonally high groundwater table. Wetland C is located along the wooded slope, south of Wetland A. Hydrology in Wetland C is likely supported by a combination of the upgradient storm drain discharges and groundwater (Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2015b). 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. Construction would occur in close proximity to the three wetlands. Construction of the new school and the service/loading area would occur within 100 feet of Wetland B's buffer and upgrades to the track would occur within 200 feet of Wetland A and C's buffers. A portion of the new school structure would be located within the 60- foot standard buffer that was adopted through the City's revised Critical Areas standards (Edmonds Community Development Code [ECDC] Chapter 23.40, as adopted May 3, 2016). This may require a limited area of buffer averaging, which would be completed consistent with ECDC 23.50.040.G. The District has avoided all direct impacts to wetlands (wetland fill) by locating proposed facilities almost entirely within existing developed areas. However, stormwater is a source of hydrology for June 2016 Packet Pg. 87 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Replacement all three of the wetlands. Construction of Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells for stormwater could impact wetland hydrology. Treated runoff would be directed to Wetland B to maintain its base flow and reduce the hydrologic impact of the UIC wells. 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 dredge material would be placed in, or removed from, surface waters or wetlands. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. The project would not require surface water withdrawals or diversions. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. The proposal is not located 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. The project would not involve discharge of waste materials to any surface waters. All waste materials from the project, including grading spoils and demolition debris, would be transported off site to an appropriate disposal facility. BMPs specific to the site and project would be specified by the District in the construction contract documents that the construction contractor would be required to implement. b. Groundwater: 1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No groundwater would be withdrawn as part of the project. However, stormwater runoff would be discharged to groundwater June 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 88 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Replacement Page 10 through use of Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells. More detail on discharge of stormwater to groundwater is provided below in Section 3.c.1. 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No waste material would be discharged into the ground. The project site would not utilize septic tanks. C. Water Runoff (including stormwater) 1. Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) 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. Stormwater is currently funneled into a trench on the western side of the property, but due to fast flows, water often pours over the edge and into the western ravine. Stormwater runoff would be collected on roofs and in catch basins and conveyed via gravity flow to stormwater injection (UIC) wells. UIC wells would be installed to discharge stormwater runoff into the ground. The wells would infiltrate stormwater runoff into the underlying Vashon advance outwash soils, which begin approximately 80 feet below ground surface and are approximately 100 feet thick. No onsite detention would be required. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Waste materials in the form of sediment generated during construction could enter surface water through stormwater runoff. The BMPs described below would minimize sediment leaving the site during construction. Stormwater runoff would be treated for basic level contaminants prior to entering the UIC wells to prevent waste materials from entering groundwater. Stormwater treatment would be provided by means of stormwater media filters in manholes or vaults. Stormwater runoff entering Wetland B will also receive basic level treatment prior to discharge. June 2016 Packet Pg. 89 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Replacement d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: The UIC stormwater system included in the site design would control runoff water impacts. During construction, BMPs would be implemented to ensure that sediment originating from disturbed soils would be retained within the limits of disturbance. BMPs may include installation of a rock construction entrance, catch basin filters, interceptor swales, hay bales, sediment traps, and other appropriate cover measures. BMPs specific to the site and project would be specified by the District in the construction contract documents that the construction contractor would be required to implement. In order to mitigate for changes to wetland hydrology, the District would stabilize the outfalls to the ravines, remove non-native species within the wetland and buffer, and enhance surface roughness within the wetland. 4. Plants a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other X other types of vegetation (see below) In general, the ravines surrounding the school are dominated by evergreen trees (such as western red cedar and Douglas -fir), ferns, nettles, and invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry and English ivy. Near the wetland in the eastern ravine, wet soil plants, such as tall mannagrass, can also be found. The uplands of the school are predominantly vegetated by grass, weeds (such as dandelions), deciduous trees (such as maples and Pacific dogwood), and a few evergreen trees (pacific madrone). Scotch broom, an invasive species, is located on the steep slope between the baseball field and the track and field area. Within the building areas there are also a few nonnative ornamentals. A tree survey was conducted in January 2016, which identified 479 trees onsite within 10' of the clearings, June 2016 Page 11 Packet Pg. 90 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Replacement Page 12 trees on the steep slopes were not identified (AFM, 2016). Presently, the City of Edmonds does not protect significant trees under its city and community development code. Tree conservation regulations have been proposed (Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 23.20); however, they have not been adopted. Under the draft code, any tree with a diameter of 6 inches or more would qualify as a significant tree. This would include 99 percent of the trees onsite (474). b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Approximately 12,000 square feet of existing native and ornamental shrub area and approximately 3 acres of lawn area would be altered. Fifty trees would be removed, 33 due to health reasons. Invasive vegetation between the two ball fields would also be removed. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. The project site does not contain any documented threatened or endangered plant species (WNHP, 2013). d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Existing trees on the site would be protected to the extent possible using tree protection measures including, but not limited to, use of tree protection fences. The landscaping plan would place an emphasis on native plants and drought -resistant ornamentals. The landscape would be designed to achieve low water use and low maintenance requirements. Landscape areas would be watered with automatic water efficient irrigation system intended to be used temporarily until plants have become established. 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. During the April 2016 site visit, a bald eagle was observed flying overhead. However, there are no eagle nests identified as being within the project vicinity (WDFW, 2016). According to the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW), no priority habitats or species are located onsite (WDFW, 2016). However, the ravines surrounding the project site are identified as fish and wildlife conservation areas (City of Edmonds, 2016). It is possible that small mammals such as raccoons, Virginia opossums, mountain beavers, and eastern gray squirrels may use the ravine, along with bird species common in forested areas (e.g., June 2016 Packet Pg. 91 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Replacement chestnut -back chickadee, red -breasted nuthatch, Steller's jay, downy and hairy woodpecker, and bushtit). Wetlands near the site may provide a seasonal water source for wildlife such as birds (for drinking or bathing). It is possible that amphibians may also use the wetlands as suitable breeding habitat due to the presence of shallow water with thin -stemmed emergent vegetation for egg laying. The mowed ballfields to the south of the school may provide foraging habitat for species such as American robin and Canada goose, which use open, grassy areas. While landscaped areas around the school and parking lot are fairly small and fragmented, they can support species tolerant of human disturbance, such as house wren, Bewick's wren, black -capped chickadee, bushtit, dark -eyed junco, house finch, house sparrow, Steller's jay, and American crow. Small mammals such as eastern gray squirrel may forage or nest in trees in these areas. Nocturnal species such as owls and bats may be present, but were not active during the site visit. Other species may only be visible or present in this area during certain seasons. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the site. C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The Puget Sound area is located within the Pacific Flyway, which is a flight corridor for migrating waterfowl and other avian fauna. The Pacific Flyway extends south from Alaska to Mexico and South America. No portion of the proposed project would interfere with or alter the Pacific Flyway. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. As required under ECDC 23.90.030, the District would undertake measures to protect wildlife habitat within the forested ravines. These would be identified in a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area mitigation plan and may include measures identified in ECDC 23.90.030(C)) such as: • a native vegetation planting plan; • plans for retention, enhancement or restoration of specific habitat features; June 2016 Page 13 Packet Pg. 92 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Page 14 • plans for control of nonnative invasive plant or wildlife species; and • stipulations for use of innovative, sustainable building practices. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and natural gas would be used to meet the new school's energy needs. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No existing or proposed buildings within the project boundaries would be tall enough to block the use of solar energy by adjacent properties. No other aspect of the project would interfere with solar energy use by others. C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Energy conservation features included in the proposed new school would include: • Skylights or roof monitors to provide daylighting for student occupied spaces. • North and south oriented classrooms for optimum daylighting and reduction in electric lighting. • Access from classrooms to outdoor learning gardens a Continuous air barrier and air leakage testing during construction to reduce infiltration and energy loss. • Vestibules at all main entries to reduce heating and ventilation loads by creating an air lock. • High performing windows with low-e coatings that would be optimized based on the window orientation. • Continuous insulation on exterior of building to prevent energy loss from thermal bridging. • Solar readiness for future installation of solar panels on 100 percent of the roof area. • Energy source metering and display kiosk to inform building occupants and owners of both real time and long term energy use. ■ Electrical: June 2016 Packet Pg. 93 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School o Daylight controls that automatically dim electric lighting in areas adjacent to windows. o High efficiency LED lighting for all spaces providing lighting power density of less than 0.5 watts per square foot. o Vacancy sensors in every room that would automatically turn lights off when space is unoccupied. o Motion sensors on exterior lights that would automatically dim lights to 10 percent when the area is unoccupied. o Plug load controllers that automatically switch off 50 percent of electrical outlets in classrooms and offices to reduce vampire loads from printers, monitors, and desk lamps during off hours. ■ Mechanical: o Air to air heat recovery in classrooms. o Decoupled heating and ventilation "DOAS" systems in classrooms. o Radiant floor heating in classrooms. o Low temperature heating water system. o High efficiency condensing boilers. o Central air to water heat pump to supplement boiler plant. o High efficiency condensing water heaters. o Low flow plumbing fixtures. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Accidental spills of hazardous materials from equipment and vehicles could occur during construction. However, a spill prevention and control plan would be developed to prevent the accidental release of contaminants into the environment. 1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. According to the Department of Ecology Facility/Site(s) database, Madrona School is a hazardous waste generator due to the presence of a Conditionally Exempt Small Generator (Ecology, 2016). The Regulated Building Materials Assessment Report found that the existing school contains asbestos throughout the buildings June 2016 Page 15 Packet Pg. 94 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Replacement Page 16 (Terracon/Argus Pacific, 2015). Bulk samples of suspect asbestos - containing materials (145) were collected and analyzed. Of those samples, 19 materials were found to contain greater than 1 percent asbestos, six materials were assumed to contain asbestos, and two materials were found to contain less than 1 percent asbestos. Of the paint chip samples collected, 17 were found to contain detectable levels of lead (70 percent). In addition, mercury -containing fluorescent light tubes were identified in the buildings, high -intensity discharge (HID) lamps were identified in the gymnasium and on the exterior of the buildings, and light ballasts associated with fluorescent light fixtures were observed to be PCB -containing and electronic (Terracon/Argus Pacific, 2015). 2. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. The existing school contains asbestos and lead paint as described above under 7.a.1. There is also a boiler building onsite that would be demolished as part of the project. 3. Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. Chemicals stored and used during construction would be limited to gasoline and other petroleum -based products required for maintenance and operation of construction equipment and vehicles. During operation of the new school facility, chemicals stored and used on site would be limited to cleaning supplies and mild acids and bases used for middle school science and would be stored in vented flammable resistant cabinets. 4. Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services would be required. 5. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Site -specific pollution prevention plans and spill prevention and control plans would be developed to prevent or minimize impacts from hazardous materials. June 2016 Packet Pg. 95 6.1.a June 2016 SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School All asbestos -containing materials would be removed and properly disposed of by a qualified State of Washington licensed asbestos abatement contractor in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations. Any previously encountered material encountered during construction activities would be sampled for asbestos prior to being impacted by demolition. Disturbance of painted surfaces with detectable concentrations of lead would be performed according to Washington Labor and Industries regulations for Lead in Construction (WAC 296-155-176). Workers disturbing surfaces with lead -containing paint would be provided the proper personal protective equipment and use proper work methods to limit occupational and environmental exposure to lead. b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? There are no existing sources of noise in the area that would adversely affect the proposal. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Vehicle and equipment operation during construction could cause noise impacts to nearby residents. Construction hours and noise levels would comply with the City of Edmonds noise standards (ECDC 5.30). The standards state that maximum permissible sound levels in residential communities are not to exceed 55 A - weighted decibels (dBAs). However, maximum permissible sound levels may be exceeded by construction activities between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. After construction is complete, noise levels would not increase over current conditions because enrollment would stay the same. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction activities would be restricted to hours and levels designated by ECDC 5.30. If construction activities exceed permitted noise levels, the District would instruct the contractor to Page 17 Packet Pg. 96 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Page 18 implement measures to reduce noise impacts, such as additional muffling of equipment. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. The project site is currently used for the Madrona School and is shared with the former Woodway Elementary School in the southwest portion of the property. Adjacent properties include residential properties. The former Woodway Elementary School is currently being used by Lynndale Elementary while the new Lynndale Elementary School is being constructed. Construction of the new school will be completed in January 2017, at which time the former Woodway Elementary will be temporarily used by Mountlake Terrace Elementary. When the new Mountlake Terrace Elementary School is completed in the fall of 2018, the former Woodway Elementary will be vacant. The proposal would not change the current land use of the site and would not affect land uses on nearby or adjacent properties. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? The site is not currently, and has not been previously, used for working farmlands or working forest lands. No agricultural or forest land would be converted to other uses. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: No working farm or forest lands are located nearby the proposed project, so the project would not affect or be affected by working land business operations. C. Describe any structures on the site. The main structure on the site is the single -story Madrona School, which consists of five separate buildings connected by covered pathways and one June 2016 Packet Pg. 97 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Replacement boiler building. Other structures on the site include playground equipment and a storage shed. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The existing approximately 95,000 square foot Madrona School and related improvements, including a 2,500 square foot covered play area, covered walkways, parking areas, and playground equipment, would be demolished after the new school is constructed and ready to be occupied. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The City of Edmonds zoning classification of the site is RS-8 (Single Family, 8,000 square foot lots). f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The City of Edmonds comprehensive plan designation of the site is Single Family Urban 1 (City of Edmonds, 2015). g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? The project site is not within a shoreline jurisdiction; therefore, there is no applicable shoreline master plan designation. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. The City of Edmonds critical areas maps show fish and wildlife conservation areas for "other" species encompassing the existing school in an area roughly corresponding to the forested areas surrounding the school and ball fields. In addition, it shows erosion hazard areas and landslide hazard areas as being located onsite. These hazard areas are identified as being located in the eastern and western ravines and in the middle of the existing field area, between the baseball field and the track field area, and along the western edge of the proposed school. A wetland critical area is also shown in the southeastern corner of the site, corresponding to the location of Wetland B. I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? No one would reside in the completed school. The capacity of the completed new school would be the same as the existing school (650 students). Enrollment growth is not anticipated; therefore, future staffing levels are expected to remain the same (approximately 80 teachers and June 2016 Page 19 Packet Pg. 98 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Page 20 staff, including itinerant staff that support Madrona School and other District schools). Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? The completed project would not displace any people. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: No displacement would occur; therefore, no mitigation measures are needed. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The project would not change existing land uses. The project would obtain a project design review permit from the City of Edmonds before construction. M. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: The project is not located near any agricultural or forest lands, so no measures to ensure compatibility are required. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No housing units would be provided as part of the project. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No housing units would be eliminated. C. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. The project would not cause housing impacts; therefore, mitigation measures to control housing impacts would not be required. June 2016 Packet Pg. 99 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Replacement 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any of the proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The height of the new school buildings would be a maximum of 30 feet at the gymnasium. The building height of the classrooms would be 20 feet or less (not including any rooftop mechanical equipment). The principal exterior building material would be brick masonry. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Views from adjacent residences facing the current school would not likely be changed by the project because dense vegetation is located between the residential neighborhoods and the school. The views most likely to be altered would be from 236t" Street SW when the existing school is demolished. Although the new school would be slightly upslope, it would be approximately 500 feet farther away from the street, making it less noticeable with a new soccer field located between the roadway and the school. C. Proposed measures to control or reduce aesthetic impacts, if any: The school has been designed to reduce aesthetic impacts to neighboring residences homes through use of setbacks and landscaping. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Exterior lighting would be required for personnel and building safety. Outdoor circulation areas and parking lots would be illuminated by LED light sources. Lighting systems would be designed to provide illumination levels in accordance with the recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society, consistent with Energy Codes. A typical streetlight is designed to emit 1 footcandle, a measurement of illumination. Exterior lighting at the new school would be designed to 0.5 footcandles and would be turned off at 10:00 p.m. The addition of a digital, illuminated sign would comply with City of Edmonds code to meet required setbacks and comply with hours of operation. June 2016 Page 21 Packet Pg. 100 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Page 22 b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Exterior building and property lighting from the completed project would not be a safety hazard and is not expected to interfere with views. C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? No offsite sources of light or glare would affect this proposal. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: It is anticipated that both exterior and interior lighting would be on timers so that the site would be mostly dark at night. Exterior lights would be designed to 0.5 footcandles. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The closest recreational opportunities are provided onsite. They include orienteering courses, two playgrounds, and two fields (baseball and track with soccer field) that are jointly used by the City of Edmonds and Madrona School. The property is well used by local residents for recreation. Many people use the orienteering trail system to walk their dogs, and many joggers utilize the school's track for running and walking (Shannon &Wilson, Inc., 2015b). In addition, a year to year interlocal agreement exists between the City of Edmonds and Edmonds School District No. 15 for the scheduling of playfields at Madrona School (City of Edmonds and Edmonds School District 15, 2015). Although the baseball field is not typically used by the community, the track and field area is sometimes used by soccer teams. The closest park to Madrona School is Hickman Park, which is located 0.75 mile away. The 3-acre park includes a picnic area, trails, playground, a baseball diamond, and soccer fields. The Klahaya Swim and Tennis Club is also located nearby (0.65 mile). In addition, the recreational facilities associated with Sherwood Elementary School, Scriber Lake High School, and the former Woodway Elementary School, are also located less than a mile from the school. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. The proposed project would temporarily remove play areas and the baseball field during construction of the new school. Once the new school June 2016 Packet Pg. 101 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Replacement is built, and the existing school has been demolished, a new covered play area, play field, and kindergarten play area would be provided. It is possible that a new baseball field would also be constructed after the existing school is removed. As part of the project, the existing track and field area located in the southwestern portion of the site would be elongated to meet current International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) track and field design standards. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreational opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: During construction of the new school, use of the existing kindergarten play area would be maintained. Construction would be phased so that older students have access to either the existing play area, the track and field area, or the new covered play area during construction. Impacts to recreational users after school hours would be related to closures of the track and field area while it is being upgraded. The construction period for the track and field upgrades is expected to be of short duration. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe. The existing Madrona School, built as the Madrona Junior High School, was constructed in 1963 and is over 45 years old. The school features six detached buildings and two athletic fields. The single -story buildings were designed in the New Formalism style and embody the style's characteristic emphasis on the structural grid, use of vertical posts, and colonnades. The buildings feature low -pitch side -gabled roofs with skylights. The school was designed by the architectural firm Waldron & Dietz of Seattle (Waldron & Dietz, 1962). Three other schools in Edmonds were designed by Waldron & Dietz: Woodway Elementary School (1956), Edmonds High School (1959), and Olympic School (1966). The firm also designed the award -winning Edmonds Community College Master Plan in 1965 (Houser, 2016b). While Waldron & Dietz were notable architects and the Madrona Junior High School is over 45 years in age, there is no indication that it was a notable project by the firm, nor does it appear to embody unique construction methods or design elements that would support listing the building on national, state, or local preservation registers. A review of historic registers indicates that there are no properties listed on or determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic June 2016 Page 23 Packet Pg. 102 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Replacement Page 24 Places or Washington Heritage Register on or adjacent to the school site (DAHP, 2016). Madrona School is not listed on the City of Edmonds Register of Historic Places or the Snohomish County Register of Historic Places. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. There is one recorded archaeological site within 1 mile of Madrona School. This is located approximately 0.90 mile east and is a segment of the historic Seattle -Everett Interurban Railroad. Two cemeteries are approximately 0.70 mile to the west: the Edmonds Memorial / International Order of Odd Fellows Cemetery (c. 1910) and the Restlawn Memorial Park (c. 1951). The Edmonds Memorial Cemetery is listed on the Washington Heritage Register. Approximately 0.70 mile south is the Firland Sanatorium complex (1914) which is listed on the Washington Heritage Register. No professional cultural resource studies have been conducted on the Madrona School property. Three studies have been conducted within 1 mile; none of these identified any cultural resources (Baker, 2012; Hartmann, 2008; Schultz, 2006). The Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation's (DAHP) Statewide Predictive Model classifies portions of the project area as "Low Risk" and "Moderately Low Risk" for encountering subsurface Precontact cultural resources (DAHP, 2010). The site is underlain by Pleistocene - aged Vashon glacial till (Shannon &Wilson, Inc., 2015a) and has not been subject to substantial natural deposition since the end of the last Ice Age. The lack of any significant natural deposition during the Holocene period substantially diminishes the potential for intact, buried precontact archaeological resources. There is a thin layer of imported topsoil (fill) overlying the till (Shannon &Wilson, Inc., 2015a) and soils are primarily classified as Alderwood-Urban land complex (2 to 8 or 8 to 15percent slopes (USDA, 2016). Alderwood-Urban land soils consist of soils developed within glacial parent material, but which has been subject to extensive human modification, such as grading and filling. A review of original construction documents reveals that school construction required extensive cutting and filling to overcome the natural slopes and undulations of the original landform. There is no evidence to suggest that archaeological sites would have ever been present within the school property, but if they had been, it is likely that they would have been destroyed or very significantly disturbed during original preparation of the school construction site. June 2016 Packet Pg. 103 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Replacement The closest known ethnographic place names are three shoreline locations over 1.5 miles west along the Puget Sound: Edwards Point, Wells Point, and Richmond Beach where kinnickinnik was gathered (Hilbert et al., 2001). Further review of historic maps and published Native American ethnographic studies suggest a low probability for encountering either Precontact-era or historic -era cultural resources on the Madrona School property (Anderson Map Company, 1910; Hilbert et al., 2001; Kroll Map Company, 1934; Kroll Map Company, 1952; Kroll Map Company, 1960; USGS, 1895; USGS, 1953; USGS, 1968; USGS, 1973; USGS, 1981; US Surveyor General, 1860). During the 20th century, the Madrona School property was under the ownership of H. T. Lewis and later Edward Brady until the State acquired the land by 1952 (Anderson Map Company, 1910; Kroll Map Company, 1934; Kroll Map Company, 1952; Kroll Map Company, 1960). The project area appears to have remained undeveloped until construction of the school began in 1962. C. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. As cited in response to questions 13a and 13b above, the following sources were reviewed in order to identify any potential cultural resources in the project vicinity: • DAHP; • The City of Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission, and the Snohomish County Historic Preservation Commission for any recorded cultural resources, cemeteries, national, state, or local register -listed historic properties; • Previous studies on or near the project area; • DAHP's Statewide Predictive Model; • Historical maps of the project area dated 1860, 1895, 1910, 1934, 1952, 1953, 1960, 1968, 1973, 1981; and • Ethnographic studies. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. No cultural resources have been identified on the property. The area is considered by DAHP to be "Low Risk" to "Moderately Low Risk" for buried cultural resources (DAHP, 2010). June 2016 Page 25 Packet Pg. 104 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Page 26 Under any circumstances, if cultural resources are inadvertently identified during the project, the developer will comply with state laws requiring the protection of cultural resources and human remains (RCW 27.53, RCW 27.44, RCW 68.50, and RCW 68.60). The developer will temporarily halt work in the immediate vicinity of the identified resources and notify the District. The District will notify DAHP and Affected Tribes to negotiate mitigation and/or avoidance measures. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site is bounded on the north by, and accessed from, 236th Street SW, which is designated as a Local Access roadway by the City of Edmonds. Edmonds Way (also designated as State Route [SR] 104) is a Principal Arterial located about 600 feet east of the site. Other Local Access roadways that serve the vicinity include 93`d Avenue W and 94th Avenue W, which both extend north from 2361h Street SW. The school replacement project would retain the two existing driveways in their current locations; however, changes to internal site circulation would modify how those driveways are used. The existing western access driveway would be used for automobile (parent, staff, and visitor vehicles) access and egress. Access and egress for school buses and a portion of staff parking would be consolidated at the existing eastern access driveway (Figure 2). b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The site is not directly served by public transit. However, Community Transit provides bus service to the City of Edmonds. The closest bus stops are located about 950 feet away from the site (walking distance) on Edmonds Way (SR 104) just south of236'h Street SW. These stops are served by Community Transit Route 416 (both directions), which operates seven days per week between the Lynnwood Transit Center and Edmonds Station with headways (time between consecutive buses) of 30 minutes from about 5:20 a.m. to 9:50 p.m. on weekdays. Farther from the site (just over a mile), there are stops located along 2441h Street SW which are served by Community Transit Route 130. Route 130 provides seven-day service between Edmonds Station, Aurora Village Transit Center, and Lynnwood Transit Center. It also operates with 30 minute headways from about 5:30 a.m. to 9:50 p.m. on weekdays. The Edmonds School District would also continue to provide school -bus transportation for students that qualify. June 2016 Packet Pg. 105 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Replacement C. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non -project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? The replacement school project proposes to provide a total of 119 parking spaces (including five ADA spaces); this is the same number of parking spaces that exist currently at the site and none would be eliminated. However, improvements to on -site circulation with increased capacity for parent -vehicle and school -bus load/unload would provide additional space for evening and/or weekend event parking. The parent -vehicle load/unload and queue area encircling the proposed main parking lot would provide capacity for an additional 40 vehicles to park during evening or weekend events. The school -bus load/unload area has room for up to 40 additional vehicles to park during event conditions. In total, the site would have capacity to accommodate 199 vehicles for evening and/or weekend event conditions. City of Edmonds parking requirements for elementary schools are outlined in ECDC 17.100.050.M.1. The ECDC requires 11 spaces per 100 students, as well as nondedicated parking areas onsite to accommodate special event parking. Based on the future school capacity of 650 students, 72 parking spaces would be required by ECDC. The proposed project would provide 119 angled parking spaces, which would meet the minimum requirement and provide an additional 45 spaces for school -day event parking. As described, the site would also have capacity to accommodate an additional 80 vehicles in the queue/load/unload areas for evening and weekend events, bringing the site total to 199 spaces. The proposed parking supply would meet the City's code requirements. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). A sidewalk would be added on the south side of 236t" Street SW between the school's two existing driveways. This sidewalk would connect to a new on -site walkway adjacent to the easternmost driveway and provide improved pedestrian connectivity to the school. No other improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle, or state transportation facilities would be required to accommodate the proposal. June 2016 Page 27 Packet Pg. 106 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Page 28 e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The project would not occur in the vicinity of or use water, rail, or air transportation. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? Based on traffic counts performed at the site driveways in October 2015, the existing school is currently estimated to generate about 1,350 trips per day (675 in, 675 out). The peak volumes occur during the morning arrival period from 8:30 to 9:30 a.m. when the school generates about 400 trips (225 in, 175 out). Volumes are also high during the afternoon dismissal period with the school generates about 310 trips (145 in, 165 out) between 3:15 and 4:15 p.m. The school was observed to generate about 115 trips (50 in, 65 out) during the commuter PM peak hour of the adjacent roadway network (from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m.). The proposed replacement school would have the same enrollment capacity and a smaller building (in terms of overall floor area) compared to the existing school. Therefore, the project would not result in any new trips generated on the local roadway network. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. The proposal would not interfere with the movement of agricultural or forest products on streets in the area because no agricultural or working forest lands are located within the vicinity of the project site. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The project includes several components that would improve traffic circulation and pedestrian safety compared to current conditions, including the addition of a new sidewalk connection along the south side of 236th Street SW and improved internal site circulation, passenger -vehicle queuing capacity, and separated school-bus/parent-vehicle access and egress patterns. The District would require the selected contractor to develop a construction management plan (CMP) to address traffic and pedestrian June 2016 Packet Pg. 107 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Replacement control during construction of the school. The CMP would define truck routes, lane closures, walkway closures, and parking disruptions, as necessary. To the extent possible, the CMP would direct trucks along the shortest route to arterials and away from residential streets to avoid unnecessary conflicts with resident and pedestrian activity. The CMP may also include measures to keep adjacent streets clean on a daily basis at the truck exit points (such as street sweeping or onsite truck wheel cleaning) to reduce tracking dirt offsite. The CMP would identify parking locations for construction staff. To the extent possible, construction employee parking would be contained onsite. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The project would not result in an increased need for public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Because an increased need for public services is not required; mitigation to reduce impacts to public services is not proposed. However, two service areas would be provided onsite for fire protection: one along the eastern boundary of the site and the other on the track field. 16. Utilities a. Underline utilities currently available at the site: Electricity, natural -Pa . water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, other b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. All of the utilities noted above currently serve the school site. Utilities would be extended from 2361" Street SW to serve the new school, and would potentially be extended all the way through the property to connect with the utility system located in the residential neighborhood to the south. June 2016 Page 29 Packet Pg. 108 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Replacement C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature:. ` Name of signee: >� /4 _Zor] L�ly Position and Agency/Organization: Date Submitted: Page 30 June 2016 Packet Pg. 109 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Replacement REFERENCES American Forest Management (AFM). 2016. Madrona K-8 School Project Tree Survey. January 20, 2016. Anderson Map Company 1910 Anderson's Atlas of Snohomish County. Electronic document, http://www.Ii istoriem4pworks.cam/Map/US/699402/Township+27+North4+Range+3+ Cast++W+M+++Pu et+View++Ba view++Richmond+Fruit+Garden/Snohomish+Cou my+1910/Washingtonl, accessed April 27, 2016. Terracon/Argus Pacific. 2015. Regulated Building Materials Assessment: Madrona K-8 School. September 30, 2015 Baker, R. Todd 2012 Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed Edmonds Community Health Center Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington. Prepared for Community Health Center of Snohomish County by Terracon Consultants, Inc., Mountlake Terrace, WA. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA. City of Edmonds. 2016. City of Edmonds GIS. Available at: http://maps.edmondswa.gov/Html5 Viewer/?viewer--html City of Edmonds. 2015. City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. Adopted July 28, 2015. City of Edmonds and Edmonds School District No. 15. 2015. Interlocal Agreement Between City of Edmonds and Edmonds School District No. 15 for Repairs, Maintenance, and Scheduling of Playfrelds at Madrona Nongraded K-8 School. August 11, 2015 Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) 2010 Statewide Predictive Model. Last updated 2010. Electronic document, http://www.dalip.wa.gov/, accessed April 26, 2016. 2016 Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Database (WISAARD). Electronic document, http://www.dalip.wa.gov/, accessed April 26, 2016. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2016. Facility Site Report: Edmonds School District Madrona School (Facility/Site: 34486491). Accessed 4/7/2016. Hartmann, Glenn D. 2008 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Swift Bus Rapid Transit Project, Technical Memo 0711A-3, Snohomish County, Washington. Prepared for OTAK by Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc., Bainbridge Island, WA. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA. June 2016 Page 31 Packet Pg. 110 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist— Madrona School Replacement Heffron Transportation, Inc. 2016. Preliminary Traffic and Access Review for Replacement. Edmonds School District — Madrona School. March 9, 2016. Hilbert, Vi, Jay Miller, and Zalmai Zahir 2001 Puget Sound Geography: Original Manuscript from T. T. Waterman. Lushootseed Press, Seattle. Available from Zahir Consulting Services, Federal Way, WA. Houser, Michael C. 2016a Dietz, Robert H. Electronic document, http://www.docomonio- wewa.org/architects_detail.php?id=26. accessed April 27, 2016. 2016b Waldron, Lawrence G. Electronic document, http//www_ .da_ comomo- wewa.orglarchitects_ deiai1.php?1d=1 10, accessed April 27, 2016. Kroll Map Company 1934 Kroll's Atlas of Snohomish County. Electronic document, http://www.historiemanworks.com/Map/US/31587/Page+O I ++Fdi-nonds/Snohom ish+C ounty+1934/Washington/, accessed April 27, 2016. 1952 Kroll's Atlas of Snohomish County 1943 revised 1952. Electronic document, http://www.historiGmapworks.coin/Map/US/488893/Page+ I +Township+27+N+R+3+E ++Edmonds++Edwards+point++Wells+Po int/Snohom ish+County+l 943+Rev iscd+l 95 2/Washin ton/, accessed April 27, 2016. 1960 Kroll's Atlas of Snohomish County. Electronic document, h ttp ://www. h i storicm al2works. coin/ M ap/U S/5 6 l 47/Tow Ei s ii i p+2 7+N ortli++Range+3+E ast++Edmonds++Woodway±±tPaa+00I/Snohomish+County+1960+Published+by+K roil/Washin tan/, accessed April 27, 2016. Schultz, Erica 2006 New Tower ("NT') Submission Packet — FCC Form 620. Prepared for Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation by EBI Consulting, Burlington, MA. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 2015a. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report: New Madrona K- 8 Project. 9300 236t" Street SW City of Edmonds, Washington. August 6, 2015. Submitted to Edmonds School District #15. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 2015b. Wetland and Stream Delineation Report: New Madrona K-8 Project. City of Edmonds, Washington. September 15, 2015. Submitted to Edmonds School District # 15. US Geological Survey (USGS) 1895 Snohomish, WA, 30' Series Quadrangle. US Geological Survey, Reston, VA. 1953 Edmonds East, WA, 7.5' Series Quadrangle. US Geological Survey, Reston, VA. 1968 Edmonds East, WA, 7.5' Series Quadrangle. US Geological Survey, Reston, VA. 1973 Edmonds East, WA, 7.5' Series Quadrangle. US Geological Survey, Reston, VA. 1981 Edmonds East, WA, 7.5' Series Quadrangle. US Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Page 32 June 2016 Packet Pg. ill 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School US Surveyor General 1860 Township 27 North, Range 3 East Survey Map. Electronic document, http://www.blin.gov/or/landrecords/survey/yPiatViewl _2.php?path=P W A&namert270 n03Oe 00l.ipg, accessed April 27, 2016. Waldron & Dietz 1962 Madrona Junior High School Construction Plan Set, Sheets 1-E9.On file, ESA, Seattle. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016. Priority habitats and species online mapping. Available: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. WNHP (Washington Natural Heritage Program). 2013. Rare plant species and vegetation communities GIS mapping. June 2016 Page 33 Packet Pg. 112 6.1.a SEPA Environmental Checklist — Madrona School Replacement FIGURES June 2016 Page 35 C Cl) 6D r N a+ C d E t V t 3 0 a a� L M N m C Q ti N O O to T- O N Z J a. C N E L V cC Q Packet Pg. 113 6.1.a SOURCE: King County, 2013; WSDOT, 2015 Madrona School Replacement SEPA Checklist. 160195 Figure 1 Project Vicinity C M T N C E t V M t 3 0 a CD L N m C Q ti N O O T 0 N Z J IL c m E 0 Q Packet Pg. 114 6.1.a [�R `�/.� • * s' =w ` ter Percent Slope `� ' * � � Jr �.1 - o R - •� • - ; he• • �] - 40 /° and greater - *s# Ald. or Eve. soil 15% - 40% (k �, i rye tL 15% - 40% b# 0 400 Feet ... �, -e�. SOURCE: King County, 2013; WSDOT, 2015 .It 41 Madrona School Replacement SEPA Checklist . 160195 Figure 2 Project Area and Existing Facilities Packet Pg. 115 NO SITE ACCESS SITE ACCESS SITE ACCES m .hSi5W A " jo X Eicisrinicq: MADRONA SCH ' j pr 1 � k• I j i1 U 2 1 ! U D r ' j Q vi � I _ w338lh S.T SW LA P II i C j. ' k i I F ND I O.ORMER OODWAY • j WIVIENThY SCHOOL �, i PROPOSED BUILDING SITE Ij WETLAND SE . t tC.ATEGORY Ii 1 Ie TIBACK .I � 1'—• ---'— � � — — ----�-- —•---- — — � rl— T � LINT __ .ai ,• NO SITE ACCESS SITE ACCESS � ! N s _- c ' RIGINAL SOFT BUFF v 11 �_ ` _�v • / r� ? P.DOPT€RbOFTBUFFER �♦ MAK03,.2016T\t - \ EXISTING WETLAND --� • _ - - - (CATEGORY II ) ----�� -�� • _ _ _ — — —I I _ / SERVIICE / v_ / �"+v.�f ♦ / - �l x N�US1 fiT N i PLAY FIELD ¢ �J �+v O aLi `Oj i i v VI m � GYM 2 � o C _ O _ CO RTY ix ----� �� S LOOP O TRY 4L- y EVENT PARKING (40) / COURT A PARKING \\ ----AVE �- - I Y �P ZZ F+ PARENT llllllllllllllllllfllfflli1111111111 - STAFF PARKIN ll L=T7 v�v Apt -N �� �,/� ���` ao •� _� -� i�' mil' I � �� I TRACK/FIELD (EXISTING LOCATION) r \ \l �I\ \ i — � 'i- - A �6 y � — //A�V�A\VA VAv� /ter lD SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN rt MADRONA SCHOOL EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT 16 MAY 2016 Madrona School Replacement SEPA Checklist. 160195 m a h l u m MAHLUM ARCHITECTS INC Figure 4 _ o Iv 4 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) an 6.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Architectural Design Board (ADB) will be reviewing the design proposed by Edmonds School District to replace the existing Madrona School and making a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. No public comment will be taken at the ADB meeting. The Hearing Examiner will take testimony during a future public hearing, which will be noticed separately once a date has been determined. Based on the record created at the public hearing, the Examiner will make the final decision on the project's design and two associated conditional use permits (PLN20160028 and PLN20160029). PROJECT LOCATION: 9300 236th St. SW, Edmonds, WA APPLICANT: Taine Wilton, Edmonds School District (rep. Corrie Rosen, Mahlum Architects) CITY FILE NUMBER: Design review (PLN20160027) DATE OF NOTICE: August 23, 2016 MEETING INFO: A public meeting will be held by the Architectural Design Board on September 7, 2016 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 250-5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020. Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this project can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Monday — Friday (8:30 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. only on Wednesdays) or online through the City's website at www.edmondswa.gov through the Permit Assistance page. Search for permit PLN20160027 for all project documents. CITY CONTACT: Mike Clugston, AICP, Associate Planner michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 x1330 Attachment 7 PLN20160027 Packet Pg. 118 4010 I � 0010" P V!ClMTY MAP PROJECT DATA ,RE Eav Eu wau fiE.Ro«v nE RE—E oREu�`rR,wrE », _ a _ - r+RMCTTEAM ..""fin: "..o[','"�E'•E=..m.. ERE.�ER dw `E*m°tmRoweuiR� ,[a aacm .x.rnwea eae.er e.r. Ea% .R[RREt, ,:a.w.E.rrs� a•Yawo. emiwRae •EdlE[a�[Ntltwl .T RglriYL e�x�rR.E�(rE qµi aROR 7 [n.ea,E�.,awr.wnaE w+nsn6 ww K! npAY earn �'i�mmyy�a�Pl IMNaRRER ��mTME%l Rnl.,[I 6C�RVcmm�l �R�t %SI�M bIWIEE:NIG'AY M,rkW [� 1 nW,pCaE ENEfIPH1 � .0 nganc � [cw[�P .MAY Y�xe mahlum Kw�E. Edmonds [CHOo[ W1RIR EVREuant.y wn'eW msaoeB�WTP= 6E,aroa REMPIAGW.LEY.ENf PME( Mµ•wwWu�,� rkM,' , En '. MADRONA SCHOOL REPLACEMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT 07/25/2016 9300 236TH ST, SW, EDMONDS, WA 90020 CUP-001 wt.. Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) 6.1.a Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington) County of Snohomish } ss Dicy Sheppard being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH717890 PLN20160027 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 08/23/2016 and ending on 08/23/2016 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is 70.52- Subscribed and sworn before me on this Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 114101416 DIANE CUNNINGHAM DEBRA ANN GRIGG Notary Public State of Washington My Commission Expires October 31, 2017 Packet Pg. 120 6.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING PRi3lECTOESCRIATlON:The Architectural Dosfgn Board (ADB Egg be reviewing the des[ggn Rropoaed by Edmonds Schoo District to replace the oxiaSing Mad rana 13chool and making a rocofffin tlon to the Hearingg Examiner. No public,. comment will be taken at in AD mesting.The Hearing Examinor will take lealimony during a ltrture public hearing, which will be noticed saparaiaI� ante a dale has been determined. Based on tho record Gra$tad al the public hearing, the Examinor will make Ills final decision on the project'v desiggn and two associated condlllonal use ppeermits (PLN20160026" FLN20160029). AROJECT.LOCATION: &300 236th St. SW, Edmonds, WA {{rap. Corrle Rosen, Mahlum Archilecis) Dealgn review (PLN2010002]) August 23, 2016 MEETINL3INFD: A public meeting wilt be held by the Architectural Design Board on Soplember 7, 2016 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 250.5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA a6020. EPerson has the right to comment on this application during lie comment period, receive notice and participate In arty ringpa. and request a copy of the dac[slon on the application. The Ry may accept public cofnrnonts at any time prior to the closing of the record of an upon record prodecWon hearing, it any or, If no open record predaclaion hearing is provided, prior toy6o decision on the project permll.Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to Initiate an administrative ap cal. Information on this project can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development SefYIcas Department, 121 $In Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 8,40 A.M. and 4;30 P.M. Monday - Friday 1 :30 A.M. to l21= P.M. only on Wednesdays] or online Ihroug the CILyy'a websito at thropgh the Permit A$ai' lance page. Search For permil Pt„ 20160027 for all project documents. CITY CONTACT: MIko Clu ston, AICP, Associate Planner Michael c�u lon�admorMswa gW 425-1714 0 x1330 TPbllshed:Augu6429,2018. EDH717690 Packet Pg. 121 6.1.a FILE NO.: PLN20160027 APPLICANT: MADRONA DECLARATION OF MAILING NOTICE OF APPLICATION On the 23 day of August, 2016, the attached Notice of Public Meeting was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. I, Denise Nelson, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 23 day of August, 2016 at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: {BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Packet Pg. 122 6.1.a FILE NO.: PLN20160027 Applicant: Edmonds School District DECLARATION OF POSTING On the August 23, 2016, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Michael D. Clugston, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 23rd day of August, 2016, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: �R {BFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Packet Pg. 123 6.1.a CITY OF EDMONC.- NOTICE OF APPLICATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Edmonds School District has applied for land use permits needed to replace the existing Madrona School. The new school will include new parking and student drop-off as well as a new bus loop with extended queuing. Site utilities will be extended to serve the mechanical, electrical and plumbing needs of the new school. The three associated permits are being consolidated under a single review pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002.E as a Type III-B decision. PROJECT LOCATION: 9300 236th St. SW, Edmonds, WA NAME OF APPLICANT: Taine Wilton, Edmonds School District (rep. Corrie Rosen, Mahlum Architects) FILE NUMBERS: PLN20160027, PLN20160028 & PLN20160029 DATE OF APPLICATION: June 9, 2016 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: July 7, 2016 DATE OF NOTICE: July 21, 2016 REQUESTED PERMITS: Recommendation on design review by the Architectural Design Board; decision on design and conditional use permits for floor area and height by the Hearing Examiner. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: Demolition and building permits REQUIRED STUDIES: Geotechnical report, stormwater report ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: Critical area checklist (CRA20160062), wetland study, tree assessment, SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance issued by Edmonds School District COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: August 4, 2016 PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: To be determined. Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this project can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Monday — Friday (8:30 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. only on Wednesdays) or online through the City's website at www.edmondswa.gov through the Permit Assistance page. Search for permit. CITY CONTACT: Mike Clugston, AICP, Associate Planner michael.clu stop edmondswri. ov / 425-771-0220 c as W U Q. m 6 0 U) �a c 0 L M as v Packet Pg. 124 VICINITY n PROJECT DATA PRO— THE NENN MACRONA SCHOOL WILL REP—E DES -I -ON: THE—TING SCHOOL RELATED SITE WORK WILL INCLUDE PARKING AND LOADING APE4S, TRACK, PIAYFIELDS, AND UTILITIES THE STINGEX UPION COMPLETION LETION IF THE NDHEW SCHOOL PROJECT — N6TH ST sw EDMONDS, wae0020 " rrpxw¢ xvamweww `J RELATED PERMITS IMRED TTALS PROJECT TEAM err ml�Rc� �nc -`� Pe,cnabl�alceanme:.ew DOWNER NR[PAEmF C NSULTANT: ]16lWMNMWM l.EIE D'A uR EYOP gRq�l/J,N111® — ib1]1' wyFl� CpfT�CT. Dk�[IYILC/ GvnIER N1rEG11� coNsuLiaNT: cplCiill lPM1, 61GEE1. b]IE 1W TE pwrnL �nE. uaa aNEE trier wnR°caRr� cnusuLraur: em vasMlsasl.,err. RlfT➢>m0 DOMIIgrloren pyLre,�vn..m Tocra.Ital DPr+,= wurrc* re.o-1 wrn woc,oDsweaew. ARCMTEc! aRCHPEcr O e cN WEER ® 0 e 0 ENGINEER STRUCTURAL END - O r mEc VEER • ,y. o p ELECT —ENGINEER -010 4 0 0 'gyp •� - o o • F lIGINEER i o DSERVK E MADRONA SCHOOL REPLACEMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD: EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT 05/20/2016 9300 236TH ST. SW, EDMONDS, WA 98020� Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) whlum t Oosl aal Roe A- vTISNiTe iox ..e.ILens I�YK•` � I IW AS Edmonds SCHOOL DISTRICT 4�rrrv�r,W EDIADIMS ECIWOL DISTRICT MAMO. SDH001- REPLACEMENT .. 2351N ST. SW. SON.—. S.' CUP-001 iu 6.1.a FILE NO.: PLN20160027 APPLICANT: MADRONA DECLARATION OF MAILING NOTICE OF APPLICATION On the 21 st day of July, 2016, the attached Notice of Application and Comment Period was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. I, Denise Nelson, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 21 st day of July, 2016 at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: A {BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Packet Pg. 126 6.1.a File Nos.: PLN20160027, -0028 & - 0029 Applicant: Edmonds School District DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 21 St day of July, 2016, the attached Notice of Application was posted as prescribed by Ordinance and in any event where applicable on or near the subject property. I, Michael D. Clugston, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 21 It day of July, 2016, at Edmonds, Washington. Sig ned: ��'-� z Packet Pg. 127 6.1.a Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington ) County of Snohomish } ss Dicy Sheppard being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH712003 PLN20160027 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 07/21/2016 and ending on 07/21/2016 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is �1116, Subscribed and sworn before me on this day of 04, Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 114101416 DEANE CUNNINGHAM DEBRA ANN GRIGG Notary Public State of Washington My Commission Expires October 31, 2017 Packet Pg. 128 6.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATtON PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Edmonds School Distrtct has applied lot tand use permits needed tc replace Iha existing Ma allied School. The new school will Inoluda new parking and student dropp-oil as well as a now bus loop with extended queuing. Site utilr ($ will ho extended 10 serve It a mothsnlcal, elect rice I and piumbing needs of the now school. The three associated permlls are being agnsolldalad under a single review pursuant to ECDC 20.01.0023 as aTypa 1[1-13 decision. PROJECT LOCATION: 0300 238Ih SL SW, Edmonds, WA NAME OF APPLICANT: Talno LYllon Edmonds School OISVICt ((rapp. Cottle Lipson, Mantuan Arehlteak FILE NUMBERS: PLN2O16Q027, PLN20160028 & PtN2016AS DATE OF COMPLETENESS: Juty , 2016 DATE OF NOTICE: Jury 21, 2010 REQUESTED PERMITS: Recommendation on design review by the Architectural Design Beard' dedsion on design and conditional its forffaor area and ho�btpdy the Hearing Examiner Us'V mREWIRED STUDIES-Gootechnlcai report. slorbmwll alor reports EkSTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS:. Critical area checklist (CRA20150082), wetland sludy. tree assessment, SEPA Mitigated Determinallan of Nonslgniflcanoa issued by Edmonds School01sVicl COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: Augusl4. 2016 PUELIC HE ARIN G 1 NFORMATION; To be determined. Anyy person has the right 10 comment on this application during ppu6lit comment period, receive police and parllcipate in any hearings, and roquest a Cagy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public eommenl$ at any Ilma prior to the Closing of lha record nI an open record pradscision heat In8, tI any, or, If no open record predeclston hearing is provided, prior to She decision on the profoct pe(mil.Only parties of record as donned In ECDC 20.0 60 have standing to Initiate an adminlatralive ap eel. Inlormetlon On this 1) of ECITIOnds apct can be viewed or Det�h Ave Nor h, Edmonds, ffWA 06020 between partmen, 12151 the hour$ of 8:00 A.M. and 4;36 P.M. Monday - Friday (8:30 A.M. to t2:00 P.M. Only on Wadnasdaya) or online Througgh the C}tv% webslte at viww.g $ugh She I�am l 2016602 for all ABaistande pagb. Sosrc or perm t PL project dowmams. CITY CONTACT: Mike Cluggsstan, AICP, Associate Planner mkhaeLciuggS5lon ®edmon dswa.gov A25.771.0220 ublishod: July 21, 2018 EDH71200I- Packet Pg. 129 6.1.a ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent -property owners list. On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. Signature of Applicant or pplicant's Representative Subscribed and sworn to before me this L day of i-<<-�•� �� Notary Public and for the State of Washington Residing at � - RECEIVED JUN ®"D 2016 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES �4.sti �'.RC7 COUNTER v� o PUBLIG 4F WAS��� Revised on 9130111 P2 - Adjacent Property Owners List Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 130 Smooth Feed Sheets" Use template 00447600001800 27033600403800 00463300400302 KNIGHT WILLIAM F US REIF FIRDALE VILLAGE WASHINGTON LLC WALKER WILLIAM P & DIANE ETRUST 5002 CARFAX AVE 15315 MAGNOLIA BLVD STE 308 10201 RIDGEVIEW DR LAKEWOOD CA 90713 SHERMAN OAKS CA 91403 GRASS VALLEY CA 95945 00446400201100 00446300002800 00446300001300 SANDERS BRIDGET YORDANOV YORDAN HARTER LINDA R 14895 SE MEGAN WAY 225 112TH AVE NE 9630 238TH ST SW CLACKAMAS OR 97015 BELLEVUE WA 98004 EDMONDS WA 98020 00446300001400 00446300001700 00446300002200 PELAN RYAN/NYEHOLT CHRISTINE HARTER LINDA R BAILEY CLAUDIA C 9610 238TH ST SW 9630 238TH ST SW 9621239TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 00446300002400 00446300003000 00446300003100 VOLI CARLO E GALES GARY & PATRICIA ISAAC KEVIN & SYDNEY S 9605 239TH ST SW 9622 239TH ST SW 9628 239TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 00446400100400 00446400100800 00446400100900 GRANT DAVID A & SUTTON PAMELA A ARTHUR BONNIE J WEBER DAVID C/KATHRYN E 23627 96TH PL W 2372196TH PL W 23729 96TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 00446400200400 00446400200500 00446400200900 ERICKSON KENT B KOST GEORGE J & MARY M KNOWLEN PATRICIA A 9623 236TH PL SW 9631 236TH PL SW 9622 236TH PL SW EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 00446400300100 00446600001300 00446600001400 BUSUEGO EURESTO N OLKOSKI JILL FERNANDEZ GENARO & JEANIE C 9626 237TH PL SW 24007 96TH PL W 24015 96TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 00446600001500 00446800000200 00446800000300 BRAUN RONALD C BOBROSKIE SHOSAKU BAKKEN OMERL & VIRGINIA F 9608 240TH PLACE S W 24014 95TH PL W 24024 95TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 00446800001600 00447500000500 00447500000600 HIXSON JAMES D & PENNY L WOLLA DEBORAH A PEARSON CAROL K 24007 95TH PL W 23508 94TH AVE W 23516 94TH AVE W EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 00447600001500 00447600002000 00447600002200 FREYWALD REINHARD GUSTAFSON KARIN B COULTER ROBERT G 9509 234TH ST SW 9432 235TH PLACE S W 9512 - 235TH PL S W EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 Packet Pg. 131 E AvEn`� z� Address labels Smooth Feed Sheets"A Use template 00447600002400 00447600002500 00447600002600 NILL LEROY M AUVINEN JERRY P & MURIEL E WELLINGS MARY E 9514 235TH ST SW 9526 235TH STREET S W 2351196TH AVE W EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 00447600002700 00447600002800 00447600003000 HUYETT ROBERT G/CHOVAN ANASTASIA C KIDWELL ADAM & KATHERINE WOLLA DEBORAH A 23521 96TH AVE W 23529 96TH AVE W 23508 94TH AVE W EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 00504800000200 00554800100405 00554800100406 WHITEMAN LOWELL & CYNTHIA KRANTZ NEIL S HEESACKER LARRY G & PAULINE D 23619 92ND AVE W 9607 236TH ST SW 9615 236TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 00554800100407 00554800100408 00554800100410 LOMAX DANIEL P LOMAX DANIEL P VANNOY DANIEL W 23504 96TH AVE W 23504 96TH AVE W 23510 96TH AVE W EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 00555300100101 00555300100104 00572300100100 PINE GREEN MANAGEMENT LLC PINEWOOD MANAGEMENT BRITT MICHAEL & ROBIN 433 SPRAGUE ST 433 SPRAGUE ST 23426 93RD AVE W EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 00572300200100 27033600111600 27033600111700 SHEPARD RANDOLPH C ORVIS JAMES W & MARY H MESLER KRISTIN 23431 93RD AVE W 23529 93RD AVENUE W 23507 93RD AVE W EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 27033600111800 27033600111900 27033600112000 TODD JULIET ANGELINA/SMITH JASON RICHARD MURPHY JOHN & CLAIRE LEE JANETTE J 23515 93RD AVE W 23510 93RD AVE W 9309 236TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 27033600112400 27033600112500 27033600114900 HARE STEPHANIE J DUMANIS LINDA A/MARK A LAFRAMBOISE ROBERT J/NOONAN JOYCE 23520 94TH AVE W 9323 236TH ST SW 23517 94TH AVE W EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 27033600403700 27033600406000 27033600403500 PETERSON SKYLER/SYDNEY ELLIOTT LEE G FITTING CATHERINE & CHRIS 24020 92ND AVE W 9216 240TH ST SW 9224 240TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020-5600 27033600404700 27033600406300 27033600406400 FITTING CATHERINE & CHRIS KILNER SCIENCE A FITTING CATHERINE & CHRIS 9224 240TH ST SW 9228 240TH ST SW 9224 240TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98020-5600 EDMONDS WA 98020-5600 EDMONDS WA 98020-5600 Packet Pg. 132 IA-Aviswe Address Labels Smooth Feed Sheets" Use template 27033600406500 FITTING CATHERINE & CHRIS 9224 240TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98020-5600 00447000100600 PORTUGALESTEBAN 23516 92ND AVE W EDMONDS WA 98020-5604 00504800000400 �HOLMESAMY 23627 92ND AVE W EDMONDS WA 98020-5605 00447600001300 ASFAW YOHANNES/ASMEROM ALGANESH 23420 94TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98020-5612 00446400100100 BUNTON ELIZABETH 23607 96TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98020-5618 00446400100500 RAMS VINOD 2370196TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98020-5619 00446300002500 BRAUN MARTHAJ 2391196TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98020-5620 00446300002900 REYNOLDS STEVEN K 23930 96TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98020-5620 00446400200200 CURRIEJIM 9632 236TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98020-5639 00554800100414 BUNTON THOMAS 9625 236TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98020-5639 27033600406600 FITTING CATHERINE & CHRIS 9224 240TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98020-5600 00447000200400 BANDY JEFFERY A 23507 92ND AVE W EDMONDS WA 98020-5604 27033600113400 LEE SEUNG JOO 23431 94TH AVE W EDMONDS WA 98020-5610 00447600001400 AUERSWALD WILLIAM E 2350195TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98020-5613 00446400100200 YAMASAKI ALEEN 23615 96TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98020-5618 00446400100600 BONIFACI BRIAN PETER & ANGELA ADAMS 23707 96TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98020-5619 00446300002600 FABIAN JOHN A 23915 96TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98020-5620 27033600112100 GEYER LINDSAY BETH/INGE JONATHAN ANTHONY 9301236TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98020-5637 00446400200300 BUZITIS JAMES & GAIL 9624 236TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98020-5639 00446400200800 HAWKINS WILLIAM T JR & ROBERTA L 9630 236TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98020-5642 00447000100500 RAYBURN EVELYN C 23508 92ND AVE W EDMONDS WA 98020-5604 00504800000300 CURRIE CHRISTINE 2362192ND AVE W EDMONDS WA 98020-5605 27033600112600 LIKER KAREN S 23509 94TH AVE W EDMONDS WA 98020-5611 00447600002300 SCHIMPF MATTHEW & ELIZABETH 23510 95TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98020-5613 00446400100300 FOSTER TOM 1 2362196TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98020-5618 00446400100700 FERRARO MICHAEL 23713 96TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98020-5619 00446300002700 JONES JORDYN R 2392196TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98020-5620 27033600112300 PERSINGER PETER D 9407 236TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98020-5638 00554800100413 FRIAR JAMES 9629 236TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98020-5639 00446400201000 PETERSEN ROBERT L & JOANN S 9625 237TH PL SW EDMONDS WA 98020-5644 Packet Pg. 133 ► VERY0 Address Labels Smooth Feed Sheets" Use template 00446300001500 00446300001600 00446300002300 WILSON BRYAN J / WILSON JENNIE L SKOVRON ELIZABETH H MYERS ANDREA K 9616 238TH ST SW 9620 238TH ST SW 9613 239TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98020-5646 EDMONDS WA 98020-5646 EDMONDS WA 98020-5650 00447600001600 00447600001700 00447600001900 TEDIA BERHANE G & YALEM A TAFERE FARNES GRIFFIN J & FIGURELLI MELISSA M HALL DOUGLAS 9429 235TH PL SW 9417 235TH PL SW 9424 235TH PL SW EDMONDS WA 98020-5676 EDMONDS WA 98020-5676 EDMONDS WA 98020-5676 c O E 00447600002100 27033600111500 00446800001300 O tt BUSBY BRENT ANDERSON-TAYLOR J F WOHLWEND CAROL s�. 9508 235TH PL SW 9205 236TH ST SW 2403195TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98020-5678 EDMONDS WA 98020-5679 EDMONDS WA 98020-6505 O O t V C0 00446800001400 00446800001500 00446600001100 M BOHSTEDT RODNEY M JOHANSON ROBERTS KIRBY DAVID J 0 O 24025 95TH PL W 24015 95TH PL W 9629 240TH PL SW a EDMONDS WA 98020-6505 EDMONDS WA 98020-6505 EDMONDS WA 98020-6507 c� 00446600001200 00446800000100 00456500000100 OLGUIN ENRIQUE A KREIMAN DONALD T GREGG MICHAEL T 9621 240TH PL SW 24006 95TH PL W 23726 91ST PL W O EDMONDS WA 98020-6507 EDMONDS WA 98026 EDMONDS WA 98026 z v ca ca 00456500000400 00456500000600 00463300400300 GREGG GORDON P OLDEN KURT M & LOIS J RADOVICH DARWIN 3 23705 91ST PL W 9117 238TH ST SW 5327 157TH PL SW EDMONDS WA 98026 EDMONDS WA 98026 EDMONDS WA 98026 O d L 00463300500301 00463300500303 00463301200401 N m BROWN RANDY K & RUTH B MORSE KRISTOFER / MOHR JENNIFER LIND MANDY C 23728 91ST AVE W 23702 91ST AVE W 9116 238TH ST SW Q EDMONDS WA 98026 EDMONDS WA 98026 EDMONDS WA 98026 ti N O O O 00463301200403 00463301300301 00463301300303 T O N Z WILKINS HELEN E WILKINS HELEN E WILKINS HELEN E d 9029 240TH ST SW 9029 240TH ST SW 9029 240TH ST SW .. EDMONDS WA 98026 EDMONDS WA 98026 EDMONDS WA 98026 E t c� O 00463301300400 00713900000600 00837000000100 Q WILKINS HELEN E PAPANASTASIOU JOHN ANDERSON REGGIE A & ASHLEY B 9029 240TH ST SW 23816 90TH PL W 9025 236TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98026 EDMONDS WA 98026 EDMONDS WA 98026 00837000000200 00837000000300 00898400000200 FIEDLER ASTRID I SCHAMEL STACY M LEE SUMI 9025 236TH ST SW # 2 9025 236TH ST SW UNIT 3 9020 236TH ST SW UNIT 2 EDMONDS WA 98026 EDMONDS WA 98026 EDMONDS WA 98026 Packet Pg. 134 11-R AVER 0 Address Labels Laser Smooth Feed SheetsTI Use template 01008700000100 KIRSE ROBERT C 9019 240TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98026 00463300500202 STECK JONATHAN & NATALIE 23703 91ST AVE W EDMONDS WA 98026=8902 00456500000201 TABOR / MCLEAN 23704 91ST PL W EDMONDS WA 98026-8917 00504800000100 SANDERSON WILLIAM W 9118 236TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98026-8925 00837000000600 GARTON GARY L & LAURA 9025 236TH ST SW UNIT 6 EDMONDS WA 98026-8934 00837000000900 DAVIS TONI K 9025 236TH ST SW UNIT 9 EDMONDS WA 98026-8934 00713900000900 CAMP LARY D 9112 238TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98026-8945 00463302000301 DANEKASDEBRA D 9022 240TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98026-9021 00837000000500 GRACE CYNTHIA A PMB 353 EDMONDS WA 98026-9205 00898400000100 BUCK LAURA DIXENE 26216 43RD AVE S KENT WA 98032 01008700000400 ZOU JIAN 9011240TH STREET SW EDMONDS WA 98026 00463300500302 BIGGS WAYNE T 23720 91ST AVE W EDMONDS WA 98026-8902 00456500000500 CANLAS IDA VI 23719 91ST PL W EDMONDS WA 98026-8917 00555300100102 STEINER ERIC R & VICTORIA L 9107 236TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98026-8925 00837000000700 CROTTS STEPHEN J & TRACEY A 9025 236TH ST SW UNIT 7 EDMONDS WA 98026-8934 00463301200402 PEAKE SARA N & IVES MICHAEL D 9130 238TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98026-8945 00713900000500 KEMPH CHARLES & BARNHART CAROL 23824 90TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98026-9015 00463302000302 HOUCK BRADLEY & ADRIENNE 9024 240TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98026-9021 00898400000300 FELSENSTEIN MICHAELZ 9020 236TH ST SW UNIT 3 EDMONDS WA 98026-9512 27033600404600 EDMONDS SCHOOL DIST 15 20420 68TH AVE W LYNNWOOD WA 98036-7405 00463302000401 HUANG EVA & SCOTT 16319 70TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98026-4901 00456500000200 BOHSCARLT 23716 91ST PL W EDMONDS WA 98026-8917 00463300400400 MORRIS KIMBERLY 9120 236TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98026-8925 00837000000400 SANDOZJULIE M 9025 236TH ST SW UNIT 4 EDMONDS WA 98026-8934 00837000000800 GARTON GARY & MARTHA / GARTON LAU 9025 236TH ST SW UNIT 6 EDMONDS WA 98026-8934 00713900000800 HAUGLIE CORDELL A & ENGEN NANCY J 9106 238TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98026-8945 00713900000700 HEADLEE MICHAEL TRUST 23808 90TH PL W EDMONDS WA 98026-9015 01008700000300 SAMUELSON BENJAMIN C & JILL K 9015 240TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98026-9021 00447000200500 AGASSIZ SARA JOYCE & RODERICK A 979 HIGHWOOD DR SW ISSAQUAH WA 98027 00446600001600 SMITH GREGORY S & JENNIFER P 18726 240TH AVE SE MAPLE VALLEY WA 98038 Packet Pg. 135 11�� AO/ER O Address Labels Laser Smooth Feed Sheets" Use template 00446300002100 EMPFIELD FRANK G REVOCABLE TRUST 15305 23RD PL W LYNNWOOD WA98087-6309 00463300400202 PAYNEGREG 8837 29 NW -SEATTLE WA 98117 00463300400301 9108 DOUGLAS LANDING LLC PO BOX 77176 SEATTLE WA 98177 00463302000400 BRAGIN BORIS 5413 MERIDIAN AVE N UNIT C SEATTLE WA 98103 00463300400204 PAYNEGREGORY 8837 29TH NW SEATTLE WA 98117 01008700000200 ROBERTS CLIFF/LOREN 428 NW 117TH ST SEATTLE WA 98177 00463300400200 PAYNE GREG 8837 29 NW SEATTLE WA 98117 27033600111400 MILLER G K/ MILLER P E/ MILLER D A 15217 DAYTON AVE N SEATTLE WA 98133 00463302000402 JAC CONSULTING LLC PO BOX 543 MUKILTEO WA 98275 Packet Pg. 136 M A►1ERY0 Address Labels 6.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 ■ Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ■ PLANNING DIVISION '12c. 189v July 7, 2016 Corrie Rosen crosen@mahlum.com Subject: Letter of complete application — clarification requested Madrona K-8 School (PLN20160027, PLN20160028 & PLN20160029) Dear Ms. Rosen, The City of Edmonds has reviewed the application for design review and two conditional use permits for the Madrona K-8 School replacement project at 930 236th Street SW. Pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.02.002, the application has been determined to meet the procedural submission requirements and therefore is complete; please accept this letter as the City's completeness notice in accordance with ECDC 20.02.003. However, while the application is technically complete, clarification is requested. Please respond to each of the comments in a cover letter and by providing updated plan sheets or other materials, as appropriate. It is noted that there will be some minor layout and roof pitch changes that will also be part of the resubmittal based on 50% design. 1. Sheet CUP-002. Please update the 'Legal Description'. 2. _Monument sign. On Sheet CUP-002, the proposed strategy under the 'Sign age' heading should reference the fact that governmental signs are exempt from the requirements of the sign chapter per ECDC 20.60.095.A, except that the dimensional and placement standards of the BN zone would apply per ECDC 20.60.025.B.4. The maximum area for a freestanding sign in the BN zone is 24 sf while the maximum height is 14 feet. Up to an additional 12 sf of area could be obtained through design review by the ADB per ECDC 20.60.015.13. If additional area is not being requested, please add a note on Sheets A-101 and E- 101 that the sign is subject to separate building permit to clarify that it is not in the scope of the subject design review. 3. Light poles, backstops, and similar structures. A number of luminaires are proposed for the parking lot area as shown on Sheet E-102. It is assumed that at least some of these would be pole -mounted. These features could be a maximum of 27 ' ' Attachment 8 PLN20160027 Packet Pg. 137 6.1.a height, unless otherwise approved. If additional height was needed, these features could be added to the associated conditional use permit for height for the school (PLN20160029) and then be up to 35 feet in height per ECDC 17.100.050.1. If height above 35 feet was envisioned, a variance would be required. Similarly, several potential covered structures and backstops are shown on Sheets A- 101 and L-101. Would those be under separate permit? If so, please note that on the plans. The same height requirements described above would apply. It is also noted that a flag pole was not shown. Please indicate where that would be located on Sheet A-101 or L-101 as appropriate. Is that to be under separate permit? The same height requirements described above would apply. Please provide an elevation drawing showing the height of the proposed light poles, flag pole, softball backstops, and covered play areas, as appropriate, or note that they will be under separate permit. 4. Geotechnical report. It was noted in the associated wetland delineation report that Shannon & Wilson will also be handling geotechnical work. Please submit a preliminary geotechnical report for the project prepared in accordance with ECDC 23.80. 5. Other staff comments. Please address the enclosed comments from the Engineering Division and Fire District #1. The Building Division noted that there are ongoing discussions regarding the project relative to the updated building code. The City will proceed with the public notice portion of the project as required by Chapter 20.03 ECDC. Please be aware that a complete response to this information request must be received within 90 days or the application will lapse for lack of information (ECDC 20.02.003.D). If you have any questions, please let me know either at 425-771-0220 or michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov. Sincerely, Mike Clugston, AICP Associate Planner Cc: Taine Wilton Packet Pg. 138 6.1.a Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM July 7, 2016 Mike Clugston, Associate Planner JoAnne Zulauf, Engineering Technician PLN20160027 — Design Review for Madrona School Replacement 9300 236t" St SW Engineering has reviewed the subject application for the Madrona School replacement located at 9300 236th St SW. Additional information is requested from the applicant at this time. Please ask the applicant to respond to the following: 1. Please show the sidewalk proposed at the east end of the property that will be constructed as part of the City's 2361h Capital Project. Label as such. 2. Please dimension all access and other roads, including the fire access areas (and portion of track to be used for the fire access) and the necked down area adjacent to the north end of the proposed "rain garden" where the drive splits to the south and to the west. Two way drive aisles are required to be a minimum of 24' in width. 3. Dimension length of parking spaces to confirm space for parking and adequate road widths. Minimum standard parking stall dimensions 8.5 x 16.5. Some reduced width stalls (8.0 x 16.5) may be allowed if the requirements of Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.95.020 A. Lb can be met. If so, clearly label all full and reduced width spaces. 4. Rain gardens are not a permitted stormwater mitigation option for large site projects (over 1 acre). Revise label if appropriate, or revise the stormwater mitigation to another system allowed under the 2005 DOE Stormwater Manual Volume V, Chapter 5 (if submittal for building permit will be after January lst, use the 2014 Stormwater Manual). Confirm that the system size can still be accommodated within the area and will not require a change to the access road size or location. 5. Please provide a stormwater report including soil infiltration testing information (see City Handout E72 D for complete infiltration report requirements) to verify feasibility of placement, size and type of stormwater systems proposed. Thank you. City of Edmonds Packet Pg. 139 6.1.a MEMORANDUM Date: July 7, 2016 To: Mike Clugston, Associate Planner From: JoAnne Zulauf, Engineering Technician Subject: PLN20160028 Conditional Use — Replacing existing K-8 School Madrona School — 9300 236th St SW - Location Engineering has reviewed the conditional use application for the Madrona School property at 9300 236t' St SW. The information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. The Engineering Division does not have any comments. Thank you. City of Edmonds Packet Pg. 140 6.1.a Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM July 7, 2016 Mike Clugston, Associate Planner JoAnne Zulauf, Engineering Technician PLN20160029 Conditional Use — Replacing existing K-8 School Madrona School — 9300 236th St SW - Height Engineering has reviewed the conditional use application for the Madrona School property at 9300 236th St SW. The information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. The Engineering Division does not have any comments. Thank you. City of Edmonds Packet Pg. 141 6.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS - PLANNING DIVISION COMMENT FORM ❑ PW-Engineering ❑ Fire ❑ PW - Maintenance ❑ Parks & Rec. ❑ Building ❑ Economic Dev. ❑ Parks Maintenance Project Number: PLN20160027 28 29 Applicant's Name: MADRONA K-8 SCHOOL Property Location: 9300 236TH ST SW Date of Application: 06.09.16 Date Form Routed: 06.21.16 Zoning: RS-8 Project Description: CONSTRUCT NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. REQUIRES CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR AREA OVER 60.000 SF & FOR HEIGHT **PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS ROUTED_DUE BY 7/05/2016 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: MIKE CLUGSTON Ext. 1778 Name of Individual Submitting Comments: Title: Q- lkeuvstccl ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have for my department and have concluded that 1T WOULD NOT AFFECT concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no DEPARTMENT so I have provided comments. My department may also comments or conditions below or review this project during the building attached. permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): r. Date Signc Phone/E-mail:_791 ,) Packet Pg. 142 Wetland and Stream Delineati 6.1.a New Madrona K- City of Edmonds, Washington May 18, 20' JUN 0 PLA/V'V"VG' Excellence. Innovation. Service. Value. Since 1954. RECEIVED �j� Or��fLo,OPMENT SERVICE') C91UNTE% Submitted Ms. Taine Wil Edmonds School District; 20420 68th Avenue" Lynnwood, Washington 981 Shannon & Wilson, 400 N 341h Street, Suite Seattle, Washington 98, Attachment 9 PLN20160027 Packet Pg. 143 6.1.a C r a Packet Pg. 144 6.1.a SHANNON WILSON, I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. I 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................ ................................................................ I 3.0 METHODS.............................................................................................................................2 4.0 DOCUMENT REVIEW.........................................................................................................3 5.0 WETLAND DELINEATION................................................................................................3 5.1 Wetland A..................................................................................................................3 5.2 Wetland B...................................................................................................................4 5.3 Wetland C...................................................................................................................5 5.4 Uplands.......................................................................................................................6 6.0 REGULATIONS ....................................................................................................................6 6.1 Federal Regulations....................................................................................................6 6.2 State Regulations........................................................................................................ 7 6.3 City of Edmonds (City).............................................................................................. 8 6.3.1 Wetlands Regulations ..................................................................................8 6.3.2 Other Critical Areas...................................................................................10 7.0 CLOSURE............................................................................................................................11 8.0 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................12 TABLES 1 Wetland Impact Compensatory Mitigation Ratios..................................................7 2 Required Measures to Minimize Impacts (ECDC 23.50.040(F)(2).........................8 FIGURES 1 Vicinity Map 2 Wetland Delineation Map 21-1-22082-002-R1f/wp/llm I 21-1-22082-002 Packet Pg. 145 6.1.a SHANNON MMLSON, ING TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) APPENDICES A Wetland Delineation Methodology B Wetland Determination Data Forms — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region C Wetland Rating Forms — Western Washington D Important Information About Your Wetland Delineation/Mitigation and/or Stream Classification Report 21-1-22082-002-Rlflwp/llm ii 21-1-22082-002 Packet Pg. 146 6.1.a SH►4NNON WILSON, l WETLAND AND STREAM DELINEATION REPORT NEW MADRONA K-8 PROJECT CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (Shannon & Wilson) was contracted by the City of Edmonds School District (District) No. 15 to conduct a wetland and stream delineation for the New Madrona K-8 Project, located in Edmonds, Washington (Figure 1). The District plans to construct a new Madrona K-8 school on the south side of the approximately 40-acre property, located at 9300 236th Street SW (Snohomish County tax parcel 27033600404600). The project is located within Section 36 of Township 27 N, Range 4 E, Willamette Meridian. The wetland and stream delineation is intended to assist the District and design team in the site selection and conceptual design process. The scope of services for our wetland and stream delineation was limited to the following tasks: ■ Conduct a background review of information relating to the site. ■ Complete a wetland delineation on project site. ■ Estimate approximate wetland boundaries within 200 feet of the property boundary. ■ Delineate the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of onsite streams. Categorize wetlands using the 2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington.1 Complete a wetland delineation report describing our findings including categories and standard buffer widths. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The approximately 40-acre property is dissected by two steeply sloped wooded areas running in north -south alignments; one is a ravine located along the eastern property boundary and the other is a forested incline located near the middle of the property. The existing Madrona Elementary School is located in the northeast corner of the property and the former Woodway Elementary School is located in the opposite southwest corner of the property. Recreational areas including a track and baseball field, and soccer fields are located in the southeast and northwest corners of the property. The areas surrounding the property consist primarily of residential development. 1 The original scope also included wetland categorization under the 2004 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, but a subsequent City critical areas regulations update rendered those forms obsolete and they are not included in this final report. 21-1-22082-002-R] f/wpnkn 21-1-22082-002 Packet Pg. 147 6.1.a SHANNON 6WiLSON, I The property is well used by local residents for recreation. During our site visits, we observed many people walking dogs in trail systems located throughout the sloped wooded areas as well, as many joggers on the track. A series of catch basin grates were observed along the inside of the track. The survey performed for the property shows that these storm drains, along with storm drain from the existing Madrona Elementary School, discharge to the top of the steep wooded slope in the middle of the property. The survey also identifies storm drain discharges to the top of the wooded ravine located on the eastern property boundary. 3.0 METHODS Shannon & Wilson conducted the wetland delineation fieldwork on July 6 and 7, 2015. Potential wetlands were identified using methods described in the Corps Wetlands Delineation Manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Corps] Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Corps Engineer Research and Development Center, 2010). Potential wetland areas were determined using the triple -parameter approach, which considers vegetation types, soil conditions, and hydrologic conditions. For an area to be considered wetland, it must display each of the following: (a) dominant plant species that are considered hydrophytic by the accepted classification indicators, (b) soils that are considered hydric under federal definition, and (c) indications of wetland hydrology, in accordance with the federal definition. Appendix A provides a detailed description of methodology used. Typically, the OHWM of streams are delineated following the guidance within Ecology's technical report Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington State (Ecology, 2010). However, no onsite streams were observed; therefore, no OHWM delineations occurred. Identified wetlands were delineated by using pink "wetland boundary" flagging and pink pin flags. Data point locations were marked with orange flagging and orange pin flags. 21-1-22082-002-R1f/wp/1km 21-1-22082-002 2 Packet Pg. 148 6.1.a SHANNON WILSON, 4.0 DOCUMENT REVIEW Prior to conducting fieldwork, we reviewed the following background information: ■ U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Web Soil Survey interactive mapping system ■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Wetlands Mapper interactive mapping system • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) SalmonScape mapping system w WDFW PHS on the Web interactive mapping system The NRCS web soil survey identifies the site soils as Alderwood gravelly, sandy loam; 15 to 30 percent slopes; Alderwood-Urban land complex; 2 to 8 percent slopes; and 8 to 15 percent slopes (USDA, 2015). These soil series are identified as non-hydric, however they may contain areas of hydric inclusions. Neither the NWI map, the WDFW SalmonScape application, nor the WDFW PHS on the Web application identify streams, wetlands, or other fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas on the property (USFWS, 2015 and WDFW, 2015 and 2016). 5.0 WETLAND DELINEATION Three wetlands (identified as Wetland A, B, and C) were delineated in the project area (Figure 2). Descriptions of the wetland and adjoining uplands follow. Vegetation is described below by common name, with the scientific name and indicator status in parentheses for the first use. Soils are described with the associated Munsell® Color Charts color. Wetlands were characterized according to the updated 2014 version of the "Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington" (Ecology, 2014) as required by the City, Corps, and Ecology (see Appendix B for Wetland Determination Data Forms and Appendix C for Wetland Rating Forms). 5.1 Wetland A Wetland A (approximately 0.02 acre) was delineated on the wooded slope located in the middle of the property, downgradient from storm drain outfalls identified on the survey. A trail system on the slope allows human and pet access to the wetland. Wetland A is classified as a palustrine scrub -shrub wetland according to the Cowardin classification and is a slope wetland according to hydrogeomorphic classification. 21-1-22082-002-R1 f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-002 3 Packet Pg. 149 6.1.a SHANNON WILSON, IN . Dominant vegetation in Wetland A includes a shrub strata of salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC), English laurel (Prunus laurocerasus, NI), mountain ash (Sorbus sitchensis, FAC), as well as an emergent strata of lady fern (Athyrium cyclosorum, FAC) (see Appendix B, Data Sheet DP-7). Soil in Wetland A is generally characterized by a surface horizon of black (1 OYR 2/1) loam extending to 5 inches below ground surface (bgs), underlain by a grayish brown (1 OYR 5/2) sand with dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 4/6) redoximorphic concentrations in the matrix. Soil observed in Wetland A meets the depleted below dark surface (Al 1) and depleted matrix (F3) hydric soil indicators. During the site visit, seeps were observed throughout Wetland A. Hydrology in Wetland A is likely supported by a combination of storm drain discharges from the upgradient storm drain outfalls and groundwater. Water in the data pit was observed at 11.5 inches bgs and the soil was saturated to the surface. Wetland A was rated according to Ecology's 2014 wetland rating manual (Ecology, 2014). Wetland A is rated as a Category IV wetland (Appendix Q. 5.2 Wetland B Wetland B (approximately 0.4 acre) was delineated within the wooded ravine located on the eastern property boundary. A network of walking paths run adjacent to and through parts of the wetland. Wetland B is classified as a palustrine forested wetland according to the Cowardin classification and as a depressional wetland according to the hydrogeomorphic classification. Dominant vegetation in Wetland B includes a forested strata of western red cedar (Thuja plicata, FAC) and red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC), as well as an emergent strata of slough sedge (Carex obnupta, OBL), yellow -flag iris (Iris pseudocorus, OBL), and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW) (see Appendix B, Data Sheet DP-3). Soil in Wetland B is generally characterized by a black (1 OYR 2/1) silt loam extending to 4 inches bgs underlain by a very dark gray (10YR 3/1) silt loam with gray (I OYR 6/1) depletions and dark yellowish brown (I OYR 4/6) and grayish brown (I OYR 5/2) redoximorphic concentrations extending to 17 inches bgs, underlain by a very dark gray (1 OYR 3/1) silt loam extending to 18 inches bgs, underlain by a very dark gray (I OYR 3/1) silt loam with gray (1 OYR 6/1) depletions and dark yellowish brown (I OYR 4/6) and grayish brown (I OYR 5/2) redoximorphic concentrations extending to at least 20 inches bgs. The redoximorphic and depletions observed in the soil below 4 inches bgs appeared blocky and mixed up within the 21-1-22082-002-R1f/wp/llm 21-1-22082-002 4 Packet Pg. 150 6.1.a 'Akl V1I I matrix suggesting that the soil may have been disturbed in the past. Soils observed in Wetland B meet the redox dark surface (176) hydric soil indicator. Wetland B is located downgradient of the storm drain outlets associated with the existing Madrona Elementary School and the play fields. Drainage patterns were observed upgradient of Wetland B in the ravine. While these areas showed indication of past surface water flow, they were not dominated by hydric vegetation and did not meet wetland hydric soil indicators. Hydrology in Wetland B is likely predominantly supported by surface flow from the surrounding ravine, the storm drain inputs from the school, and a seasonally high groundwater table. Wetland B was rated according to Ecology's 2014 wetland rating manual (Ecology, 2014). Wetland B is rated as a Category III wetland (Appendix Q. 5.3 Wetland C Wetland C (approximately 0.1 acre) was delineated south of Wetland A along the wooded slope located in the middle of the property, downgradient from the storm drain discharges identified on the survey. A trail system on the slope allows human and pet access to the wetland. Wetland C is classified as a palustrine emergent wetland according to the Cowardin classification and as a slope wetland according to hydrogeomorphic classification. Dominant vegetation in Wetland C includes a shrub strata of western red cedar, an emergent strata of lady fern, and creeping nightshade (Solanum dulcamara, FAC) (see Appendix B, Data Sheet DP-6). Soil in Wetland C is generally characterized by a black (10YR 2/1) loam, underlain by a grayish brown (1 OYR 5/2), gravelly, loamy sand with dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 4/4) redoximorphic concentrations in the matrix extending to at least 14 inches bgs. Soils observed in Wetland C meet the depleted below dark surface (Al 1) and the depleted matrix (173) hydric soil indicators. During the site visit, seeps were observed throughout Wetland C. Hydrology in Wetland C is likely predominantly supported by a combination of the upgradient storm drain discharges and groundwater. Soil in the data pit was saturated to the surface. Wetland C was rated according to Ecology's 2014 wetland rating manual (Ecology, 2014). Wetland C is rated as a Category IV wetland (Appendix Q. 21-1-22082-002-RlflwpAkn 5 21-1-22082-002 Packet Pg. 151 6.1.a SHANNON ML.SOP 5.4 Uplands Uplands observed on the project site consist predominantly of developed school structures and recreational facilities as well as portions of the wooded slope and. The play fields are dominated by a variety of grasses, dandelion (Taraxacum officinale, facultative upland [FACU]), hairy cat's ear (Hypochaeris radicata, FACU), and clover (Trifolium repens, facultative [FAC]). The wooded areas are dominated by western red cedar, Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii, FACU), hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla, FACU), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa, FACU), holly (Ilex aquifolium, FACU), English laurel, sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FACU), and English ivy (Hedera helix, FACU) (see Appendix B, Data Sheets DP-1, DP-2, DP-4, and DP-5). Upland soils on the property generally consisted of a surface horizon comprised of dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) to black (5YR 2.5/1) loam in the upper 2 to 5 inches bgs, underlain by dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4 and 4/4) to.light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3) loamy sand to silt loam extending to at least 16 inches bgs. In areas closer to the wetland boundaries, redoximorphic concentrations were observed below 5 inches. However, the soil profiles in these areas do not meet wetland hydric soil indicators. No saturation was observed in the upland soils although surface drainage patterns were observed in the ravine and below storm drain outfalls on the western slope. 6.0 REGULATIONS Several local, state, and federal regulations apply to development proposals in and/or near wetlands and streams. A summary of applicable regulatory implications is given below. 6.1 Federal Regulations The Corps' review process under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is required for projects involving discharges of dredges or fill materials into waters of the United States, including non -isolated wetlands and streams. We did not observe a hydrologic surface connection between the onsite wetlands and a Water of the U.S. Therefore, the Corps may consider the onsite wetlands to be isolated and not subject to the CWA. However, this determination would need to be made by the Corps through a "Jurisdictional Determination." If the Corps takes jurisdiction over the site wetlands, impacts to the wetlands would require compensatory wetland mitigation. The Corps, in cooperation with Ecology, has developed guidance for conducting wetland mitigation in western Washington (Ecology and others, 2006). For unavoidable impacts to Category III and Category IV wetlands, the Corps and Ecology 21-1-22082-002-R1f/wp/llm 21-1-22082-002 6 Packet Pg. 152 6.1.a SHANNON 1111 L O , I , recommend the on -site and in -kind permittee-responsible mitigation ratios shown in Table 1 based on area (area of mitigation: area of wetland impact.) TABLE 1 WETLAND IMPACT COMPENSATORY MITIGATION RATIOS Reestablishment F ,'Now or Creation (R/C) Reestablishment and or Creation (R/C) Wetland Reestablishment Rehabilitation and Enhancement Enhancement Category or Creation Rehabilitation RIl E) Only III 2:1 4:1 1:1 R/C 2:1 1:1 R/C and 4:1 E 8:1 Hand 1:1 R/CCaand 1:1 IV 1.5:1 3:1 1:1 R/C and 2:1 E 6:1 6.2 State Regulations Ecology has been authorized to implement Section 401 of the CWA for Water Quality Certification in Washington for most projects that require Corps permits under CWA Section 404. Typically, projects requiring a CWA Section 404 permit also require a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification. If the onsite wetlands are determined to be isolated, the project would not require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. The purpose of the 401 certification process is to ensure that federally permitted or federally funded activities comply with the federal CWA, state water quality laws, and any other applicable state laws. Some general requirements for Section 401, if it is required, include pollution spill prevention and response measures, disposal of excavated or dredged material in upland areas, use of fill material that does not compromise water quality, clear identification of construction boundaries, and provision for site access to the permitting agency for inspection. If the Corps does not take jurisdiction over the onsite wetlands under the CWA, Ecology still has regulatory authority to protect isolated wetlands under the State Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 Revised Code of Washington). Ecology would perform an administrative review of the project and would issue an Administrative Order for unavoidable impacts to isolated wetlands. 21-1-22082-002-Rlfr pnkn 21-1-22082-002 7 Packet Pg. 153 6.1.a SHANNON WILSON, INC. 6.3 City of Edmonds (City) 6.3.1 Wetlands Regulations The City regulates wetlands and wetland buffers under Chapter 23.50 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) (City, 2016).2 Based on our field observations and using the 2014 Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, Wetlands A and C are Category IV wetlands and Wetland B is a Category III wetland (Appendix Q. The City requires a 60-foot standard buffer around Category III wetlands and a 40-foot standard buffer around Category IV wetlands, with implementation of the following minimization measures when applicable (Table 2 and Figure 2) (ECDC 23.50.040(F)(1-2)). TABLE 2 REQUIRED MEASURES TO MINMINIZE IMPACTS (ECDC 23.50.040(F)(2)) Disturbance 11e aired Measures to Minimjze Impacts Lights Direct lights away from wetland. Noise Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland. • If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation plantings adjacent to noise source immediately adjacent to the outer wetland buffer. Toxic runoff ■ Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered. • Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of wetlands. ■ Apply integrated pest management. Stormwater runoff ■ Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development. • Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer. • Use Low Impact Development (LID) techniques (per Puget Sound Action Team publication on LID techniques). Change in water Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces regime and new lawns. Pets and human ■ Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to disturbance discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion. ► Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a conservation easement. Dust Use best mana ement practices to control dust. Disruption of corridors • Maintain connections to offsite areas that are undisturbed. or connections • Restore corridors or connections to offsite habitats by replanting. z The Edmonds City Council adopted revisions to these regulations in May 2016, so all code references below are taken from the track changes version of the code provided in the Council's agenda packet. Accordingly, there remain some typographical errors in that version with respect to section numbering. 21-1-22082-ao2-xif/wpnkn 21-1-22082-002 Packet Pg. 154 6.1.a SHANNON bWLSON.1 In accordance with ECDC 23.50.040(F)(2), the City may require increased buffer widths on a case -by -case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values. The City bases this determination on the following criteria: ■ A larger buffer is needed to protect other critical areas; ■ The buffer or adjacent uplands has a slope greater than 15 percent or is susceptible to erosion and standard erosion control measures will not prevent adverse impacts to the wetland; ■ The buffer area has minimal vegetative cover. In lieu of increasing the buffer width where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the wetland functions and values, development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan may substitute. ■ The wetland and/or buffer is occupied by a federally listed threatened or endangered species, a bald eagle nest, a great blue heron rookery, or a species of local importance; and it is determined by the director that an increased buffer width is necessary to protect the species. ECDC 23.50.040(G) allows for buffer reduction only when existing buffer vegetation is inadequate; the buffers of the existing wetlands are primarily densely vegetated with a mix of native tree and shrub species so this provision may not be applicable. Based on our understanding of the current development proposal, there may be some small areas of existing buffer that are lawn and ballfields that would be impacted. Under ECDC 23.50(G)(3), the City allows for buffer averaging with buffer enhancement if the following requirements are met: ■ The buffer averaging and enhancement plan provides evidence that wetland functions and values will be: Increased or retained through plan implementation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is generally intact; or Increased through plan implantation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the functions and values of the wetland. ■ The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics or the character of the buffer varies in slope, soils, or vegetation, and the wetland would benefit from a wider buffer in places and would not be adversely impacted by a narrower buffer in other places; ■ The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a subject parcel for wetlands extending off -site, after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within a standard buffer; and 21-1-22082-002-R1 flwp/flm 21-1-22082-002 0 Packet Pg. 155 6.1.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. R The buffer width at any single location is not reduced by more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the standard o buffer width. However, wetland buffer averaging that also modifies the erosion hazard area and/or its buffer would not be allowed by the ECDC without a geotechnical analysis and demonstration that the wetland buffer averaging and erosion or landslide hazard area buffer modification would not adversely impact the wetlands. Wetland buffer reduction through buffer enhancement may also be allowed if buffer averaging is not feasible on site (ECDC 23.50.040(G)(4)). ECDC 23.50.040(G)(8) describes potential permitted uses within wetland buffers, including conservation and restoration activities, passive recreation (such as trails), and stormwater management facilities. The proposed development of a new school and fire access road are not allowed uses within wetland buffers. If buffer averaging or reduction with enhancement is not sufficient to address the need for placement of structures, then a variance and additional buffer mitigation would be required. 6.3.2 Other Critical Areas The City regulates critical areas including wetlands (addressed in Section 6.3.1), fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, geologically hazardous areas, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and shorelines under ECDC Title 23 Natural Resources. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas include streams, state priority habitats and areas associated with state priority species, and federally designated threatened or endangered species, among others. The site investigation and document reviews did not identify any streams or other fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas on site or within 225 feet. This scope of services did not include professional assessment of other regulated critical areas. However, some observations about potential geologically hazardous areas is warranted given the affect this critical area can have on site development, particularly when it overlaps with wetlands and wetland buffers. Based on soils mapping, available topographic information, and the City's definitions of geologically hazardous areas (ECDC 23.80.020), the presence of erosion and/or landslide hazard areas on the eastern and western sides of the property at or near Wetlands A, B, and C and their buffers seems likely. A geotechnical report would be required to establish the appropriate building setback and buffer from the top and toe of any erosion or landslide hazards. An additional analysis would be required to alter the hazard area, the minimum building setback and any required buffer (ECDC 23.80.070(A)(1-2)). A hazards analysis must demonstrate the following: 21-1-22082-002-Rl rrwpnxn 21-1-22082-002 10 Packet Pg. 156 6.1.a SHANNON 6WILSON, I ■ The alteration will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions, ■ The alteration will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties, and Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas (ECDC 23.80.070(A)(3)). Shannon & Wilson will be providing the necessary geotechnical analyses under a separate scope of work. 7.0 CLOSURE The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific application to this project, and have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area, and in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in our agreement. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based on interpretation of information currently available to us, and are made within the operational scope, budget, and schedule constraints of this project. No warranty, express or implied, is made. Shannon & Wilson has prepared Appendix D, "Important Information About Your Wetland Delineation/Mitigation and/or Stream Classification Report," to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitations of our reports. SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Sarah Corbin, PWS Biologist SCC:PCJ:MWP:AJS:KLW/scc 21-1-22082-002-R1flwpAkn 11 21-1-22082-002 Packet Pg. 157 6.1.a SHANNON WILSON, INC. 8.0 REFERENCES City of Edmonds (Edmonds), 2016, City of Edmonds City Code Chapter 23.50 Wetlands: Edmonds, Wash., May 2016. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2015, Web soil survey. Available: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed: August 2015. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Waterways Experiment Station, 1987, Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual: Vicksburg, Miss., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1, 143 p., available: http://www.wli.nres.usda.gov/delineation/. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Engineer Research and Development Center, 2010, Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual: western mountains, valleys, and coast region (version 2.0): Vicksburg, Miss., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center, Final report ERDC/EL TR-10-3, 152 p. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2015, Web map service: FWS_Wetlands _WMS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Open geographical information systems consortium version: 1.3. Available: http://www.fvvs.gov/wetlands/Data/WebMapServices. Accessed: August 2015. Washington State Department of (Ecology), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, 2006, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1): Olympia, Wash, Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication no. 06-06-11a. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), 2010, Determining the ordinary high water mark on streams in Washington State, second review draft: Lacey, Wash., Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication no. 08-06-001. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), 2014, Washington State wetland rating system for western Washington: Olympia, Wash., Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication no. 14-06-029, 126 p. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 2015, SalmonScape mapping application, accessed July 2015, available: http : Happs. wd fw. wa. gov/salmons cap a/map , htm l Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 2016, PHS on the Web mapping application, accessed March 2016, available: http://4pps.wdfw.wa.gay/phsontheweb/ 21-1-22082-002-Rlflwp/lkn 12 21-1-22082-002 Packet Pg. 158 I 6.1.a I r 0 2,000 4,000 1 F- 1 Approximate Scale in Feet NOTE Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by Google Earth Pro, reproduced by permission granted by Google Earth TM Mapping Service. Wetland Delineation Report New Madrona K-8 Project Edmonds, Washington VICINITY MAP September 2015 21-1-22082-002 SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. FIG. 1 EOTECHNICAL AND ENVIPONNENTAL CONSULTANTS Packet Pg. 159 6.1.a U W (O CD N aD Ln O N i0 0 200 400 �- Scale in Feet LEGEND Data Point and Designation Wetland Boundary Wetland Buffer NOTE Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by Google Earth Pro, reproduced by permission granted by Google Earth Tm Mapping Service. Wetland Delineation Report New Madrona K-8 Project Edmonds, Washington WETLAND DELINEATION MAP May 2016 SI-MNON 6WILSON, INC. DEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONBIILTANT6 21-1-22082-002 FIG. 2 Packet Pg. 160 6.1.a SHAN NON &WILSON, INC. APPENDIX A WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY 21-1-22082-002 r c m E w u m Q. m 0 0 U) ca c 0 L m Cl) CD r N a+ C d E t V t 3 0 a a� L m N m 0 Q ti N O O O r O N Z J a. C N E L V cC Q Packet Pg. 161 6.1.a C r a Packet Pg. 162 6.1.a APPENDIX A WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A.1 WETLAND VEGETATION.......................................................................................... A-1 A.2 HYDRIC SOILS............................................................................................................. A-3 A.3 WETLAND HYDROLOGY.......................................................................................... A-3 A.4 DISCLAIMER................................................................................................................ A-4 A.5 REFERENCES............................................................................................................... A-4 TABLE A-1 Definitions of Plant Indicator Status................................................................... A-2 AppendixA_Methodology (Western Mt.) Dec 2012/ A-i 21-1-22082-002 r c as E a� a a� 0 0 U 0 L M o� Packet Pg. 163 6.1.a APPENDIX A WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY The triple -parameter approach, as required in the Washington State Department of Ecology's (Ecology's) 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, the United States Army Corps of Engineers' (the Corps') 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, and the Corps' 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) was used to identify and delineate the wetlands on the site described in this report. The triple -parameter approach requires that vegetation, soils, and hydrology are each evaluated to determine the presence or absence of wetlands. An area is considered to be a wetland if each of the following is met: (a) dominant hydrophytic vegetation is present in the area, (b) the soils in the area are hydric, and (c) the necessary hydrologic conditions within the area are met. A determination of wetland presence was made by conducting a Routine Delineation. Corresponding upland and wetland plots were recorded to characterize surface and subsurface conditions and more accurately determine the boundaries of on -site wetlands. A.1 WETLAND VEGETATION Hydrophytic plants are plant species specially adapted for saturated and/or anaerobic conditions. These species can be found in areas where there is a significant duration and frequency of inundation, which produces permanently or periodically saturated soils. Hydrophytic species, due to morphological, physiological, and reproductive adaptations, have the ability to grow, effectively compete, reproduce, and thrive in anaerobic soil. Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation are based on the wetland indicator status of plant species on the national wetland plant list (Lichvar, 2012). Plants are categorized as Obligate (OBL), Facultative Wetland (FACW), Facultative (FAC), Facultative Upland (FACU), or Upland (UPL). Species in the facultative categories (FACW, FAC, and FACU) are recognized as occurring in both wetlands and non - wetlands to varying degrees. Most wetlands are dominated mainly by species rated as OBL, FACW, or FAC (Table A-1). AppendixA_Methodology (WestemMtns)Dec 2012/ 21-1-22082-002 A-1 Packet Pg. 164 6.1.a TABLE A-1 PLANT INDICATOR STATUS GROUPS Plant Indicator Status Categories Obligate Wetland (OBL) — Plants that almost always occur in wetlands. Facultative Wetland (FACW) — Plants that usually occur in wetlands, but may occur in non -wetlands. Facultative (FAC) — Plants that occur in wetlands or non -wetlands. Facultative Upland (FACU) — Plants that usually occur in non -wetlands, but may occur in wetlands. Obligate Upland (UPL) — Plants that almost never occur in wetlands. (Lichvar, 2012) The approximate percentage of absolute cover for each of the different plant species occurring within the tree, sapling/shrub, woody vine, and herbaceous strata was determined. Trees within a 30-foot radius; sapling/shrubs and woody vines within a 15-foot radius; and herbaceous species within a 5-foot radius of each data point were identified and noted. However, where site conditions merited it, the dimensions of the tree, sapling/shrub, woody vine, and herbaceous strata were modified. The dominance test is the primary hydrophytic vegetation indicator and it is used in all wetland delineations. Dominant plant species are considered to be those that, when cumulatively totaled in descending order of absolute percent cover, exceed 50 percent of the total absolute cover for each vegetative stratum. Any additional species individually representing 20 percent or greater of the total absolute cover for each vegetative strata are also considered dominant. Hydrophytic vegetation is considered to be present when greater than 50 percent of the dominant plant species within the area had an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC. If a plant community does not meet the dominance test in areas where hydric soils and wetland hydrology are present, vegetation is reevaluated using the prevalence index, plant morphological adaptations for living in wetlands, and/or abundance of bryophytes (e.g., mosses) adapted to living in wetlands. The prevalence index is a weighted average that takes into account the abundance of all plant species within the sampling area to determine if hydrophytic vegetation is more or less prevalent. Using the prevalence index, all plants within the sampling area are grouped by wetland indicator status and absolute percent cover is summed for each group. Total cover for each indicator status group is weighted by the following multipliers: OBL=1, FACW=2, FAC=3, FACU=4, UPL=5. The prevalence index is calculated by dividing the sum of the weighted totals by the sum of total cover in the sampling area. A prevalence index of 3.0 or less indicates that hydrophytic vegetation is present. AppendixA_Methodology (Western Mt.) Dec 2012/ 21-1-22082-002 A-2 Packet Pg. 165 6.1.a A.2 HYDRIC SOILS Hydric soils are defined as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (USDA SCS, 1994). Repeated periods of saturation and inundation for more than a few days, in combination with soil microbial activity, causes depletion in oxygen (anaerobic conditions) and results in delayed decomposition of organic matter and reduction of iron, manganese, and sulfur elements. As a result of these processes, most hydric soils develop distinctive characteristics observable in the field during both wet and dry periods. (USDA NRCS, 2010). These characteristics may be exhibited as an accumulation of organic matter; bluish -gray, green -gray, or low chroma and high value soil colors; mottling or other concentrations of iron and manganese; and/or hydrogen sulfide odor similar to a rotten egg smell. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has developed official hydric soil indicators as summarized in Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA NRCS, 2010). These indicators were developed to assist in delineation of hydric soils and are based predominantly on hydric soils near the margins of wetlands. Some hydric soils, including soils within the wettest parts of wetlands, may lack any of the approved hydric soil indicators. If a hydric soil indicator is present, the soil is determined to be hydric. If no hydric soil indicator is present, additional site information is used to assess whether the soil meets the definition of hydric soil. Identification of hydric soils was aided through observation of surface hydrologic characteristics and indicators of wetland hydrology (e.g., drainage patterns). Soil characteristics were observation at several data points, placed both inside and outside the wetland. Holes were dug with a shovel to the depth needed to document an indicator or to confirm the absence of hydric soil indicators. Soil organic content was estimated visually and texturally. Soil colors were examined in the field immediately after sampling. Dry soils were moistened. Soil colors were determined through analysis of the hue, value, and chroma best represented in the Munsell® Soil Color Chart. A.3 WETLAND HYDROLOGY Wetland hydrology is determined by observable evidence that inundation or soil saturation have occurred during a significant portion of the growing season repeatedly over a period of years so that wet condition have been sufficient to produce wetland vegetation and hydric soils. Wetland hydrology indicators give evidence of a continuing wetland hydrologic regime. Wetland hydrology criteria were considered to be satisfied if it appeared that wetland hydrology was AppendixA Methodology (Westem Mtns) Dec 2012/ 21-1-22082-002 A-3 Packet Pg. 166 6.1.a present for at least 5 to 12.5 percent (12 to 31 days) of the growing season. The growing season in western Washington is typically considered to be from March 1 to October 31 (244 days). However, the growing season is considered to have begun when: (a) evidence of plant growth has begun on two non -evergreen vascular plants, and (b) the soil reaches a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit at 12 inches. The Seattle District Corps of Engineers requires 14 consecutive days of inundation or saturation for a wetland hydrology to be considered present. Wetland hydrology was evaluated by direct visual observation of surface inundation or soil saturation in data plots. The area near each data point was examined for indicators of wetland hydrology. Wetland hydrology indicators are categorized as primary or secondary based on their estimated reliability. Wetland hydrology was considered present if there was evidence of one primary indicator or at least two secondary indicators. Some primary indicators include surface water, a shallow water table or saturated soils observed within 12 inches of the surface, dried watermarks, drift lines, sediment deposits, water -stained leaves, and algal mat/crust. Some secondary indicators include a water table within 12 to 24 inches of the surface during the dry season; drainage patterns; a landscape position in a depression, drainage, or fringe of a water body; and a shallow restrictive layer capable of perching water within 12 inches of the surface. AA DISCLAIMER This methodology was prepared for reference use only and is not intended to replace Ecology's 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, or the Corps' 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). A.5 REFERENCES Munsell Color, 1992, Munsell soil color charts: Newburgh, N.Y., Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation, 1 v. Lichvar, R. W., 2012, The national wetland plant list: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center, Report ERDCC/CRREL TR-12-11, 224 p., available: http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.artny.mil/NVVPL/doc/proc 2012/ERDC-CRREL TR-12-11 NWPL 2012.pdf. AppendixA_Methodology (WestemMtns) Dec 2012/ 21-1-22082-002 A-4 Packet Pg. 167 6.1.a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center, 2010, Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual: western mountains, valleys and coast region, Version 2.0: Vicksburg, Miss., U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center, Report ERDC/EL TR-10-3, 153 p. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, 1987, Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual: Vicksburg, Miss., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1, 143 p., available: http://www.wli.nres.usda.gov/delineation/. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS), 1994, Changes in hydric soils of the United States: Washington, D.C., Office of the Federal Register, FR 59 (133): 35680-35681, July 13. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Services (MRCS), 2010, Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States, Version 7.0, L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.), USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Washington State Department of Ecology, 1997, Washington state wetlands identification and delineation manual: Olympia, Wash., Washington State Department of Ecology, Report 96-94. AppendixA_Methodology (Western Mtns) Dee 2012/ A-5 21-1-22082-002 Packet Pg. 168 6.1.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. APPENDIX B WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS — WESTERN MOUNTAINS, VALLEYS, AND COAST REGION 21-1-22082-002 Packet Pg. 169 6.1.a C r a Packet Pg. 170 6.1.a WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Western Mountains, 'Valleys, and Coast Region ProjectlSlte; �ACAi 1 tr li?�►1 CIIyfCounty:6�MC9r_{ kSh oV 0IV iota Sampling outer �4�y (r0 AppJlcanlJOwner: - I)It., Im re, State: VJA Sampling Point:.i.Jl'--- Investlgatogs): Ca,61n 6,0110 Won, Tow-ishlp, Range: 6 �� �1 7jr Landform (hilislopo, terrace, eta,); { Local relief (concava convex, none):. Q_ Slope (%), L Subregion {LRR,); ` Sol[ Map UnIt Name: Lat: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showin Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yx s No Hydric Soft Fresent? Yes No lVstland Hydrology present? Yes No Lang: Datum. NW classlilcation. Are ellmatic l hydrotaglc condlilans on the site typical forthis ilme of year? Yes L No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation . Soil , or Hydrology signifitantlydislurbed7 Are "Normal CirGurnslanws` present? Yes Nc Are Vegetation Soil , of Hydrology naturally pfoblernatic? (tf Headed, explain any answers sampling point locations, transacts, Important features, etc. Remarks. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants.. t Tree Stratum (Plot size:} 1. 2. 3, Is the Sampled Area within al Wetland? in Remarks,) Yes No V Absolute Dominant Indicator DominanceTest works hset: % Cover Sgec;ies? Slatua Number of Dominant Species Thal Are OBL, FACIN, or FAC: (Ai d, _ Total Cover pi i41$Isrub Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2, 3. 4, b. = Total Cover Hed;l5kalum (Plotstxe: } 2. Da"0AWAn IGir&XA66VA f5 'lr;tir>r114 7 3. 4 WCA 'rJ2 Le 9, _� 'Y 1r �_� ' � & 7. I y�5o£`l1ftR�}t, I Grl Ire t3. 10. { � Lob = Tout Cover Wcodv Vine Strato (Plot size: I ) 2. !'- Total Cover %8 Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: A " °( 1(, 1 Yf . Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: % (a) Purc ant of Dominant SpWus SO That Are 08L. FACW, or FAC: (A!B) Total % C ar o� f Multiply by: pBL species " x 1 9 0 _ FACW species _ > x 2 - 0! FAG species x 3 FACU species_ x 4 UAL species (� A 5 ColumnTotais:(A) (B) Prevalence Index = IVA- k3 Ryidrophytic Vegetation Indloators: 1 - Rapki Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominence Test is >60% 3 Prevalence Index Is 0,0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data Jn Remarks -or on a Separate Shoot) 5 - Wetlend Nan -Vascular Plants' _ Pro blematic Hydrophy [It Vegetatlon' (Explain) ' indicators of hydrlc soil Find wetiand hydrology mull be present, unless disturbed or lamblematic, Hydraphytic Vagotatlon W Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Verslon 2.0 Packet Pg. 171 %8 Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: A " °( 1(, 1 Yf . Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: % (a) Purc ant of Dominant SpWus SO That Are 08L. FACW, or FAC: (A!B) Total % C ar o� f Multiply by: pBL species " x 1 9 0 _ FACW species _ > x 2 - 0! FAG species x 3 FACU species_ x 4 UAL species (� A 5 ColumnTotais:(A) (B) Prevalence Index = IVA- k3 Ryidrophytic Vegetation Indloators: 1 - Rapki Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominence Test is >60% 3 Prevalence Index Is 0,0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data Jn Remarks -or on a Separate Shoot) 5 - Wetlend Nan -Vascular Plants' _ Pro blematic Hydrophy [It Vegetatlon' (Explain) ' indicators of hydrlc soil Find wetiand hydrology mull be present, unless disturbed or lamblematic, Hydraphytic Vagotatlon W Present? Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Verslon 2.0 Packet Pg. 171 6.1.a SOIL ripWn: (Qescribe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or corrffrr Depth Matrix Redox EeajuMs i' :Qom J(Moisil �°'^ _ QgI r (majall Sampling Point- Toxture RaMagm Type: C-Con_cenlralion, CADeplelian, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS -Covered or Coaled Sand Gralns Hydrlc Soil Indlealors: (Applicable to all LRRa, unless otherwise noted.) _ Hlsioscl (Al) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ HisUc Eolpedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (SO) _ Black Histic (P,3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fi) (ox"pt NILKA 7) _ Hydrogen Sulyde 0,4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ De plated Below Dark Surface (At 1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (FB) Sandy Plucky Mineral (Si) � Depleted (3ark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyad Matrix (84) Redox D®presslons (F9) Restrictive Layer [If present), Type_ Depth (ip"hes): Remarks HYDROLOGY Indleators- PrIniary In ice r ® d• _ Surface Water (A'I) _ High Water Table (A 2) Saturaton (AB) Water Marks (B11) _ Sadinreni Deposits (132) _ Drift Deposits (69) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Surface Soll Cram (BS) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Indicators (or Problomatta Hydrlc Sc _ 2 cm Muck (Al Q) Red Parent Materlal (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surfers (TF12) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophyllc vegetatlon Find Welland hydrology must be present, unless dtstirrbed or problematic, Hydrie Boll Present? Yes Water-Stalned Leaves (69) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) Sall Cast (811) Aquatic Invertebrates (S13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Llving Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced iron (04) Recant Iron Reduction in Tilled Sails (CG) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Other (Explalrl in Remarks) No 2492090a It3Wdlcatots 12 or more required] WaterStalned Leaves (Bg) (NLRA 1, 2, 4A,and 48) — Drainage Patterns (1314) _, Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Saturation VlsIble on Aerial Imagery (CO) — GeOrnOrplhic Position (132) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) — FAC-Neutral Test (135) Ralsed Ant Mounds (D(I) (LAK A) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Surface Water Present? Yes No V Depth (Inches): Water Table Pre soni7 Yes No �% Depth (Inches): Saturation Present? You No Depth (Inches). I Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, mon1toring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), ifauallatlw No US Army Corps of Engineors Western Mountains.. Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 Packet Pg. 172 6.1.a WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valloys, and Coast Region Pro)ecUSIte: 1N1 t t' ;}, CIIyJCountY: ]ter E ++i� Sampling Date; �I_ Applicani/Owwner: - mpllRg Pglnl: Investigators): (Uv c r hon, Tavrnshlp, Range, .41 nPLandform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Local relief ,concave, corste , Subregion (LRR): 11 Lai: Sall Map Unit lame: NAf'iE11,) a, ►71r�'lr,tl�{ �J.Ei4d�l 1010 Are d1malic I hydrologic conditions an Hbesite typicil for this time of year? Yes _ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? �Dn9, Datum- �� NWI classification: •I No (If no, explain In Remarks.) Are 'Normal Cirrumstpnces" present? Yes ' No (If {seeded, explain any answers In Remarks•) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map stl<ovwing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, .etc. Hydrooylic Vegetation Present? YAs No Hydrlc Soil Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Welland Hydrology Present? Yes Na within a Wetland? Yes No remarks, A k ' 31iJrYI r �8�i ��l C� 1', e EPf J• )Jt- iJ 6 , rA tii)ti_\4!r ,_A: iITsTP�,�4_' l(iPJ i1'_l VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. I Absolute Dominant Indloator Trea Stratum (Plot size: CaM 5osalMI Status 3. kLjLC C- t �^ FA C 4. J 5 i C� = Tntal Cnvar h r Pia! $ize: ! 3, toilr. vv' mom i D y .t 3 4. A Gn U 5. = TOW hover (plot size: I 1 1. t] t I 1 E'r] '�l Int71M1I ltillvl��- �1 iJ 6_ 8. 9, 'I 0. 11. 1 = Total Cover Woody Vine Straturr (Plol rise: = To al Cover % Bare Ground In Hem Stratum Remarks: Test sv Number of Dominant 5peries That Are OBL, FAOW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (a) Percent nt Dominant Species Thnr Are ❑SI_, FACW, prFAC: Index worksheoL Total YQ4Y4f Ali._. _ 6dultltsly by. OBL species 5 xi = FACW npmes x 2 e . - FAC species -in x 3 = FACll species � x 4 = UPL species � x 5 = Q Calumn'relals: '2-q I (A) /(B} Prevalence Index t DfA- 3 • �O Hydrophytic Vegetation indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ® 2 - DomMance Tent is 2r60% 3 - Prevalence Index Is 93,01 4 - Morptloingleal Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or an a separate sheet) 5 - Welland Non -Vascular Plants' _ Problematic HydrophyilcVegetatlon'(Explain) rindieators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Yngetatlon Present? Yea No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 Packet Pg. 173 6.1.a SOIL Sampling Point, Profile Dose riptlon: Il]escribe to the depth needed to document the Indicator orconfirm the absence of indiratnrs.) Depth Matrix R949Z Features ]_ --Soiarbnolsc! ^ yl coprtmol T�ae Loe Texture R®marks 'T e: CeConvan1ralion, 0- Do p Ip on RM-Red uc d M trix CS -Covered or Goa led Sand Grains. RLocalion: PL-Pore Lln;n lvl ,Vlatrix. Hydric Boll Indicators: (Applicable, to all LRRs, unless otherwisa noted.) lhdleatcrs for Problarimtle Hydric 8olfg'! _ Hislcsol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muds (A10) _ Hislic Eplpadon (A2} _ Stripped Matrix (S13) Red Parent Material (72) — Black I•listle (A3) _ Loamy Mucky hilneral (F1) {except ► LRA'1) ,._.• Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _.,_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) — Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F21 — Olhsr (Explain In Remarks) _ depieted Below Dark Surfaca I101) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) ® Thick Dark Surface (A! 2) — Redox Darir Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic veg©lation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral ($1) — Depleted Dark Surfaw (177) #etiand hydrology must be present, — Sandy Glayed Matrix (u4) — Redox Depressions (178) unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layar{if presantf: Type, Depth (Inches): Hydric Sell Present? Yes No Remarks: `If3 C,,Iwlµ�,f �l ����'� �c`F,a �D �- �~ I . t�_ t.1wt `� U l�� HYDROLOGY Welland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators lminlmin- D- type rcuolielchook ell itrat aprzhll + GS�iI orYLn4li�atars [2 or more reaulrvdi Surtdce Water (Al) � Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except � Water -Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 413) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (010) _ Water Marks (131) _ Aquatic Invetlebrates (1313) _ Dry -Season Water Table (02) _ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Saturation Vlslble on Aerial Imagery (09) _ DFilt Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhixospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Posillon (02) _ Algal Mai or Crust (Bd) _ Presence of Reduced iron (04) _ Shallow Aqullard (03) _ Iron Deposits (B5) (Recent iron Reduction in Tilled Salts (C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (1361 _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRRA) _ Ralced Ant Moupds (DO) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) � Frost -Heave Hummooks (D7} Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface W) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No _ +' t depth (inches}: NlaierTable Present? Yes No Depth (inches); Saturallon Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Watiand Hydrology Present? Yes No includes ca ills frin e Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), If available: Remarks: M Cl) CD N C ro t V M 3 O a N L N m Q ti N O O to 0 N Z J t1 c ar t v co Q US Army Corps of Englneeis Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast- Version 2,0 Packet Pg. 174 6.1.a WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMA — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region �' y 1 tt' A �l°� t i S Date: r 7 PraJaoVSite: <, fyt:'.. � uylerr�tcl:; x� �u GityJGopnty: State: mpling Sam ling Paint; 7 j r;,�)t U.d; +rX Applicant/Owner: [nvestlgator(s}: r3 L section. Township. Range: P� Landfofm (hllislope, farrlce, etc.): Local rel:i%k con;v--e',kconvax, nonsj: Slope Subregion (LRR): — L.at: Boil Mop Unit Name: 4� gyA W1y"k, M► rr r � -,r � e Are climat[c 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for,this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation , Sall or Hydrology significantly disturbed' fAb Are Vegetation . Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? ) L .'> _ Lang: Datum: No (if no, explaln in Remarks.) Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes K— No (If heeded, explain any answers In Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site mpp showing sampling paint locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Prasenl? Yes Hydric Boll present? Yea ir0 Is the 5ampta Area Wetland Hydrrology Present? Yes No wlffitn a Wetland?lnd7 YesZNG Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. i Absolute Dominant Indicator Dom] n ance Test works heeL Tree Stratum {Pro: size: r �i o% Cover spa Number of r7ominnN Species } j t.•NC_. VAC That Are QBL. FACT^!, or FAC: (A) 2_ 1 r Total Number of Dominant 3. Specles Across All Strata: (6) A 1 Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover ThatAre OBL, 1 ACW, or FAC: 1 (A16) sanlinnlShnib $try: jm {Plot size' �1 1. Prevalence Index worksheets 2. Total % Cover at Mullloly QBL Spades x f = �. FACWapecles x 2 = 4. FAC Spades x s = 5, FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum {Plot size. �U4 = Total Cover ti r 06i , UPI. species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (3I 1, , -, • �. [Gtl G+I111•t a g, b , ll jj L4 i�. , 1- ___ l FA' PreYalancs index = 61A = 3, el o4. CIclo If i rib U u—voU r I'J4 r HydrophyticVegetadan Indicators: 1 - Rap[d Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation -0ornlnance Test is - 560% 4. I 5.74,2 3 - Pnovals nee Index Is 13.10 ° 7. 4 -Morphological Adaptations' (ProvidesupporlIng date In Remarks or on a separate sheot)i _ 5 -Weiland Non -Vascular Plants' _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 8 9 0 f 1. 'Indicators of hydric loll and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1llraodaVlnaSlraiurr, (Wlofslze: �� Total Cover � 1. -� Hydrophytic VegWallan I'Qnt? Yea hln 2. =Total Cove % Bare Ground In Herb 5tralum Ram/arks; (elr��all �.i��ti �,#3�+I)c��i�•Cs US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 Packet Pg. 175 6.1.a SOIL Sampling Pain.—) ,l --i Profile tleacription: (Describe tb the depth needed todocument the indicator or confirm trig absence otindicators.) Depth MatrIx RedpZ F&Iirep [7Cl1B�L_ Colin {iretl % �gLQ� Imofs� _ Tvoe ^Texture _ Rem$rkss , ?, 'V Z;I& eV-- y J `type: C=Cencenlrailon, D=Deplelion, RIA--Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coalod Sand Grains. 'Location PL=Pore Lininn. tut=Matrix Hydrlc Soil Indicators: (applicable to all LRfts, unless otherwise hatod.) Indicators for Problematic Hydrlic Befits'; _ Hlslosol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (SS) _ 2 cm Muck (Al0) _ Hlslic Eplpeden (AZ) _ Stripped Matrix (8B) _ Red Parent MaterW (TF2) r Black Histic (A3) _ 'Loarny Mucky Mineral (171) (except 91ILRA 1) � Very Shallow bark Surface (TF12) _. Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Glayed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) ! Depleted Belcw bark surface (A,11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Vindicators _ Thick Hark Surface (Al 2) �'n Redox Dark Surface; (FB) or hydrophytte vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mlneraf (Si) _ Depleted Dark Surface (17) wetland hydrology must be present, — Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) — Redox Depresslons (F&) unless disturbed or prablematic. Restridiva Layer lif prosaA: Type: Depth (Inches)_ HydMie Soil Prosont? Yes No 4jrks� HYDROLOGY wetland Hydrology indicators: 9 _ surface [Rater (Al) 1 Water-Slained Leaves (139) (except _ dater -Stained Leaves (59) (AIILRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 413) Saturatlon (A3) marks _ Salt Crust (811) Dratnsge Patterns (810) wwater (B1) _ Aquatic Inverlobrates (813) _ Dry-Saason Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturatlon Visible on Aerial Imagery (CO) _V Ddfl Deposits (98) _ 0xldized Rtilzospheres along LivAg Roots (C3) ✓Gaomai-rhlc Posillan (D2) _ Alga) Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iran (C4) J Shallow Aqultard (03) — Iron Deposits 186) Recent Iron Reduciion In Tllled Soils (CB) _ PAC -Neutral Test (DG) _ Surface Soil Cracks (BB) — Stunted or Stressed Plants (DI) (L.RRA) _ Raised Ant Mounds {Dq (LRRA) JnundatlxsnVlslble an Aerial Imagery (B?) _ Sparsely Vegetated Canrnue Surface (BB) _, Other (Explaln In Remarks) _ Prust-Heave Hummocks (07) Field Observations: j Surface Water Present? Yes No� depth (Inchas): Water Table Present? Yes No— y` Depth (inches): 1 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth {inchos): Wetland Hydrology Present? lies No lncludeB capillary Erin Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspecllons), if avallable: Remarks: } 1. Ij IUtI jVvi=.+v"({'� x- (Y.d.ei gr>r.{WS`�C41iElW�j lAy,c,-(t'i' `t�irlL�t"r�r,.,c i I{� � ! ��y t � , ✓J d US Army Corps of Engl nears Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 Packet Pg. 176 6.1.a WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM— Western Mountains, Valleys, and (toast Regian ProjectlSite: n CilylCounty- ( 144oi� SYlkn Sampling Date: -7% AppiicanUCwner dL� �` � ``� ' T� state: Sampling Paint inVestigatar(s): 0 P• -Ul < j 011irl I SeChnfl, Tawnshlp, Range: J Landfonn (hillslope tern etc.): ri 1 f ,5{�yr�v - Local relief (concave, convex. none): , �villP}C Slope (%): r� Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Da um; Sall Map volt hl€r111a: + l�Vf'115r1 DilrA+i NVA classification: , lllf/tl Are cllrrlatbC i �iydroiogia corlditions on lie site typical fur this time of year? Yes j, hie (If no, explain In Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology slgnificanlly disturbed? Ate %ormal Cirr urnstancoe present? Yes `"' No Are Vegetation -Soil , or Hydrology naturally probiematic7 Of needed, explain any answers In Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampiIng point locations, transects, Important features, etc. Hydroptrytic Vegetation Present? Yes Ne Hydric Sell Present? Yes No le iha St3m11 Area Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes Nv within a Welland? Remarks: i gg �� VEGETAT10N — Use scientific names of plants, 1 Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stralu (Plat size: �� i ° Cover Snaclos4 1. 2. 3 4_ i $0011oESbW S:ralum (Plot size: (QykC- 2. 3. 4. 5 = Total Cover AC " S Total Cover {plat size: -� nn'' 1. i k. ` ('! trI r illNll i 1]� �Pbi'�lfir., fA C- �. uy+n i'� �+'l.�i� 3. { 1uM0A4 kJ r CA tM(A, tA, fAL 4. V\ �� l IrAC U 5. 6. 7. S. g. 1©, 11. r { == Totai Cover V+lcodv Ulna Stratum (Plat size: _ ��,,,,^S 1. 2. = Total Cover Ok Bare Ground In Herb Stratum Remarks; Yoe *' No oominance Testwafkshaat: Number of lDontlnant Species r` That Are OBL, FAkCW, or FAG: (A) Total Number of Doniirlant + Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: �� WB) Prevalence Index worksheat: Total % Cover of- __ - I by: CEL specles x 9 = FACW species x 2 FAC specie x 3 = FACU species x d = „ - UPL special x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (8) Prevalence Index = EIA Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophylle Vegetation r 2 - Dominance Test Is ?,-50 1, _ 3- Prevalence Index is S3.0' 4 -Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data In fiemarks or on,a separate sheet) _ 5 - Wadand Non -Vascular Plants' Problematic Hydrophyft Vegetation' (Explain) ' Indcators of hydrtc sail and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic, Hydrophytic Vegetation III Present? Yes f No U5 Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Verslon 2.0 Packet Pg. 177 6.1.a SOIL Sampling Point: ] _ r(0 Prollie De+scriptlon: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indlestor ercontirm the absence of Indicators,) Depth Matrix �i;hyS - _ Golor lm2istt _ _ Colcu fl giw), % YVna^ LCC ^ g 17pgl r c 1� ',Y Jti•1 ll i .t{_ b s, 'Ty pe: C-Conccnlraflon. D-ll ap lesion, R -Reduced Matrix. CS -Covered or Coaled Sara 0raIns_ 21-ocailon: PL=Pore Llr[in2, M4Aatrix, Hydrlc Soil Indicator's: jappiicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted:) Indicators for Problarttatic Hydric Salto'- - Histbsol (Al) — Sandy Rudcx (85) e 2 cm Muck (At0) _.,, His0c Eolpedon (AL) _ Stripped Matrix (SS) s Red Parent Material (TF2) — Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallovr Dark Surface (iF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Ueiow Hark Surface (At 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix {F3) — Ottrer(Explsin In Remarks) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2) s Rednx Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophyllcvegatatian and Sandy Mucky Mineral 011) — Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (84) Redsx Depressions (F8) sinless disturbed or probtematic. Raatrictive I aver (lf presantl: Type; Depth (inches). Hydrk Soil Present? Yes 1 No Remarks; HYDROLOGY Wetlaod Hydrology Indictors: PdMaU i ra 5 r�'S rl}r rarV lndfat4_rs 42 ❑I rIlOrU rtiirllll'BrJI Surface Weter (Al) Waken -Stained Leaves (139) (except — 11vater-S(ained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 481 Saturation (A3) Saft Crust (B11) — Drainage Patterns (810) Water Marks (81) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (813) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1 } 0 8aturatlon Vlsfble on Adrial Imagery (CO) arM DoposlLs (133) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along LMrV Rants (C3) _ Geomorphla Posliion (02) _ Algal Mal or Crust (84) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquilard (03) _ Iron Daposlts (85) _ Recent Iron Reducvon In'filled Solls (C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test (06) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants, (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) _ Inundation Lrislale an Aerlal imagery (157) ^Other (Explain In Remarks) ® Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) _-,,, Sparsely Vegetated -Concave Surfaca (es) Field Obeervatlans: Surface Water Present? Yes NoDkpth (Inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (Inches): Saiuratlarr Presets? Yes No Depth (Inches): 1Jr FVC Welland Hydrology Present? Yea No ncludes ca ilia frin e Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge; monitoring well, aerial photos, previous bspectlons), if available: Remarks: r-Oily t1h ` t 0) c�tJJJJj �r i j-; I I I C M Q US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 Packet Pg. 178 6.1.a WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region ProjeCUSlte: McAlto4rf < ` C1ty1Copnty: f7 . k A�""'?�harnpllina Dote: Applieanvowner; tk 1 Lt 7 EA, ksta, VQ A s rw1 ng Paint: Invest+gatar(s): J •� �f " 12 3.0-6. Vt Suction, Township. Range: ` '4-' -- Landform (hills•ope, ( ce, etc.}' k+Ae-,60)).12 Laval relet tconcave, convex, none): CG V (t; V� slope Subregion (LRR): Sell Map Unit Name' I c ,c Are climatic I ) ydrolcgic condillorfs on the site typical for,thls time of year? Yes _ Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Arc Vegetaflon , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? Long NVVI classification: Dalum: No (If no, explain In Remarks.,) Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes L11 No Of needed, explain any answers In Remarks,) dkuiwivjmr% r %jr rvrmLdn,4U31 — mLu7411 as LC rria F! 711uw11tlj aalilp 11IJ FIu111a IUU4 LILFII. , 41a11OWULW, illlj JL011L NaQiY1 W1Jr ULU. HydrophylicVegetation present? Yes Now Hydria SDI Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area , Wetland Hydrology Presenl? Yes No �r within a WaUantl3 Yes No VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Ind'rca:er Tree Stralum (Plot size: Jaw 1. _ ACI J 2. � r t � b �.�1[.[-_1 g r FAC. d. t �.r � �_- � Total Cover r (Plo Ixe: k�� �;;�7��— 3, P 4. =Taut Cover Herh S^�tum Plot I,m: , � 1 � , n �.�. r 11A +- 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover t 5 r (Pfot size; j 1, V\ � 6 2 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb 5traturn Remarks: Dominance Toot worksiheel: Number of Dominant Species ThatAro OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Bominanl Species Across All Strata. (B) Percent of Dominant Species 20�-, 'That Are OBL, FACW, or PAC: (AS) Prevalence Index works hoot: Tolal % Cover of, Nlulttaty hv; 413L specles x i = rACAO speclas x 2 = C) FAC spades X3. 13 FACU spades x 4 =G UPL species x 5 = Column Tote Is: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = BfA = Hydrophytic Vegetation indicators: 9 - Rapid Test for HydrgpVlc Vegetation 2 - Dominance Teat Is a50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data its Remarks or on a separate $heal) a - Welland Non -Vascular Plants' Problematic Hydrophyl:c Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators othydric soil and Welland hydrologyMW be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Tfic Vegum on 'Vegutetion Presant? Yes Flo US Army Corps or Engineers We stem Mountains, Vail aYs. and Coast — Vera Ion 2.0 Packet Pg. 179 6.1.a SAIL Sampling PL)oint: 'Profile Nscriptlon: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or conitrm the Absence bf indlcatar6.) Depth {Matrix Redox FaMums f lnohesl Cofer lnwistl y - Cplor fmoisli 4% Tyae-,~l flc �� Remarks �w _ qt Hydrlc Sell Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted,) Wstosal (A1,1 _ Hlstic Eplpedon (A2) _ Black Htstc. (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick park Surface (Al2) _ Sandy Mucky Mlnerasl (S1) Sandy G W"d Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (If prownq: Type: Depth (inches): HYDROLOGY _ Sandy Redox (85) _ Stripped Matrix (SG) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fi) (except BRAT 1) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (152) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (f=7) Redox Depressions (F8) 'Lawtlow PL=Pore L"no, M, Ma Indicators for Problematic Hydrtc Sc 2 an Muck (A10) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) — Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explal�n In Remarks) 'Indicators cf hydrophylic vegetaflon and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed of probtematic, Hydric Soli Presents Yes No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: &)MIM Indicators [minimum of 12ne raaujmd: check all That afloivl r r t , Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (I39) (except _ Water -Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) ML RA 1, 2, 4li and 48) 4A, and 4E3) _ _ Saturation (A3) — Salt Cruet (1311) _ Drainage Pattems (1310) — Water Marks (i31) — Aquatic Invartebrates (1313) _ Dry-Seasm YVaterTable (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (01) _ Saturation Vialble an Aerial Imagery (M _ Britt Deposits (as) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) C _ Algal Mat or Duct (B4) _ Presence. of Reduced Iron (U) _ Shallow Aquitard (03) _ Iron Deposits tBb) _ Recent Iran reduction In Tilled Salts (C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D3) _ Surface Soil Cracks (68) Stunted or Stressed Plants (131) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) Inunriatidn Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (07) _ Sparsely Vaystated Concave Surface {138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes Na - _, f eplh (inches): MblerTable Present? Yes No V apilh (inches): r. t, ` Saturation Present? Yes Na Oeplh (inches): Wetland Hydrology Pros ont? Yes No Indudes capillary irin el Describe Recorded Date (stream gauge, monitoring well, wrial photos, previous Inspections), If maltable Rermafk US Army Carps of Engineers Wastem Mounlains, Vsbeys, and Coast — Version 2.0 Packet Pg. 180 6.1.a WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region ProjectfSite: HL' i 1VlLi. V'-(aif� 16t, Applic-antJOwner, aM0ktQ. S !E�lIIArjpL Inuestlgator(s): `0.tudmy► tF Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Subregion (LRR): i1 Soil Map Unit Name. Ff Aj La� t1• 3 f• +` I f CllyfCounty' � I�rUCG1(l�'=. t��ar�li;�uLtf`;� Sampling Bate; State: _�b� Ser . nPPnq paint: f u Seotlon, Townshlo, Range; !E>- tJWIC Local relief (cancave, convex, Wane): %tl l > Slope (°A): Are alimaticf hydrologic condttions on the site typleel for.thts time ol'year? Yes Are Vegetation ,Sall or Hydrology slgniflcanily disturbed? Are Vegetation. . Soli , or hydrology naturally problematic? Long: �� Datum; NVVI ctaWficatlon: No (If no, explain in i2nmarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes V No (if heeded; explain any answers In Remarks,) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site rnAp showing.sampling point locations, transacts, Important features, etc. HydraphyticVegetation Present? Yes No i ` r eri Hydric SPresent?? Yes _ No , .-' Is the Sampled Area { Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No ` wlthin a Wationd? Yes No Remarka: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot sfza: 94 Cover 3 sStatus 1. KC- rnc- 3. 4. -- Sanlingr Shrub Stratum (Plot size; + ) 1. 2. 3, 4, 9. Fiem SimWrn (Plotstzm:. � } 1. 2 3. 4. 6. 9. 7. ..� a. 9. 10. l l r ? = Total Cover Total Cover 11. � r � Total Cover W Vine f talfSI stza 2. x Total Cover % Bare Ground In Herb Stratum Remarks, DoMina nCe Test wor%aheet: Nurrberof Dorninam Species That Are OBL, FAGW, or FAC, (A) Total Number of Dominant F� Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species r That Are 08L• FACK or PAC: -� (A19) of Multiply br 08L species C? X 1 = •�� FACW species C) x 2 = 0� FAC species x 3 . 330 FACU spBaes x+4= 1 ?— UPL species x 5 r. e Column Totals: s(A) .Z-- i13i Prevalence Index = INA w '3,n 3 Hydraphytic Vegetation Indicators: _ i , Rapid Tes: for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test Is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is Q.G' - Morphological Adaptatlonsl (Provtde supporting data in Remarks -or on a separate ahem) _ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular plants ® Problematic HydrophyUr. Vegetation, (Explaln) rind"tors of hydrlc 8ol and Welland hydrbbgy must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydraphoc r r Vegetation V/ Pracont? Yes No US Retry Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Ver'slon 2.0 Packet Pg. 181 6.1.a SOIL Sampling Point. ( + P fits i]e$crlptlon: (Dsacrtbs to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm ihs absence of Indicators.} Depth Matrix Redox Features r CULOLfmolstl % Color 012!& __ -YA.— _aRL 4 Remarks (} t1I� I ill Cam• C+INC.StGt r iT e: C-Concentrallon, D=De lotion RM -Reduced Matrix CS Covered or Coated Sand Drains. kowilon; PL=Bore L"n M=Matrix, Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRR9, unless otherwise noted.) lndkstore for Problematic Hydric Solls3: — 111stosol (All) _ Sandy Redox (S5) — 2 cm Muck (+A10) Histic F.pipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix () _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Slack Histle(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F9) (except WLRA 1) _ Vary Sballove Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Luamy%leyed matrix (F2) _ Other{Explain In Remarks) _ depleted Bel+oo+ DarkSur`ace (All) _,.• Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Dark Surrece (F6) 11WIcators of hydmphytic vagetatton and l ` Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) — Depleted Dark Surface (F?) vietiand hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Mletrlx (84) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (If present): Types, j Depth (Inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No tt/I Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Pilmary IndIratorr rmIrian um of one toaulmd: checrlt all that aoolyy _ segorldafy Indlcatars f2 ar m012 renulredi _ Surface Water (,411 Water -Stained Leaves (89) (except Water-6talned Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, — High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) _ Saturation (+3) Salt Crust (811) Drainage Pattems (1310) Water Marks (B1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (613) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _® Sediment Deposits (92) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (CO) Drift Deposits (63) _ Oxldired Rhlxospheres alone Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Pu5ltian (02) Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Presence or Reduced iron (C4) Shallow Aqultard (D3) _ Iron Deposlts (135) _ Recant Iron Reduction In Tilled SoAs (C6) _ FAC-Nautrol Test(DS) Surface Soli Cracks (86) — Stunted or Slresred Plants (01) (LRRA) _ Raised Ant Mounds (1313) (LRRA) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Oth or (Explain In Remarks) _ Frost -Heave hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surfaca (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No, r�/Depth (Inches): I.. Water Table Present? Yes No _ ...1� Depth (irlehes): l Saturation Present? Yes No V Depth (Inches): Watland Hydrology Prueant7 Yes No Includes ca Ila fri e Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monliadng well, aerial photos, previous Inspectiorts), ff evallable: Remarks: . fl PIq i� .3Q � ''(nA� h Gil a n "t. r �� rrcir s f 1<i I C i Ilk'i C U1 d f •I, f q US Army Corps of Enalnsa(A Wl Vlf Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Verslor 2A Packet Pg. 182 6.1.a WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region f i —te Project/Site:Hor�vovm r�,, City/County - . r �r )/l Bpi S Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: t+ViD:�r r►1 ( State: WA ,/ SRa'mpl nk'g Proint: Invesligator(s): f_s (~ A V ram. V 06 V� N15 Section, Township, Range: G (0 / 1%.� W �•.LI c Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): V)I V t � Local relief (concave, convex, none): fPI4i)I K Slope (%): Z Subregion (LRR): {{ 6 Let:r i ` • Long: C�� �DaE rn: Soil Map Unit Named ti lr f{Nt 51 ' 'kassification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of ear? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks-) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site trap showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes a Hydric Soil Present? Yes �o Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes k% No within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: I h F I 4o-o (1 A VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: �� ) 1. 2, 3. Absolute Dominant Indicator °% Cover Species? Status 4. = Total Cover 5apjjB,alShrub Stratum (Pjpt size: `3 1. I 1�tL�P.irr�.{r)S . rlrainj t/�� 2. i 6A Lr dL N 05 Gi0f0g1, ,10b 3. t�tt 6r�pu SI�G�IC+A'�fS 140 Fier 4. , `ov �Ll;tAS7.tIwA G AC0 5. r _ 0 - = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size:�,,fA 2. 0 J-1 (VIA 1A0 all r� F CU 3. i) �-0 m 1 ��reu� 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10. 11. S I ' = Total Cover Woody 1.iI Vine Stratum , rr�' n, (Plot size: 12 �( ���� 2. =Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species _ x 5 = Column Totals: (A) Prevalence Index = B/A = (A/B) (a) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 12!�_2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes. � No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Version 2.0 Packet Pg. 183 6.1.a 0*111 Sampling Polni: L' Profile Description; (D®scribe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators,) Depth Matrix __ _ Radix Fee;ores Aasbisl _ Color (mujsll °� Cofor (F1101 ] % TYQer Lo�� Remarks 11e: C--Concentration, Q=Qe lot'on. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered orCoatad Sand Grains. $Locatlon: PL-Pnre LINN, M-Matrix. Hydric Sou indicators; (Applicable to aR LIRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils' — Histosol (At) _ Histic Eolpeddn (A2) Black HistIc (A3) Hydra gon Su fide (A4 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A f 1) Thlrk D9rk Surface (Al2) — Sandy Mucky Mlneral(S1) _ Sandy Clayed Matrix (54) Restrictive Layer {if present): Type: Depth (inches), Remarks: HYDROL,QGY Sandy Radox (55) _ Stripped Matrix (SB) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (173) _ Redox Dark Surface (176) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Redox Depressions (FO) 2 cm Muck (A10) Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Very Shallow Clark Surface (TF12) _ Other (Explaln in Remark ) Slhdicators of hydrophytle Vegetation and welland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. t . Hydrlc Soil Present? 'Yes No Pr)MIl } lait amitrrr:trm of one reauiredLiheck_all that apply} -SacorliloryJndiaatnrr,2 a Mn rQ Mg u I rej) �Surface Water (A1) — Water -Stained Leaves (EM) (except — Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1.2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48) _ Saturation (A3) — Salt Crust (811) — Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Day -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (E12) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aar lal Imagery (CS) Drift Deposits (B3) — Oxldized Rhizospheres along Llving Roots (C3) ! Geomorphic Posltlon (D2) " Algal Mat or Crust (13t) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) — Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (B51 Recent Iron Reduciton In Tiled Soils (GS) FAG -Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Sall Cracks (®S) Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) _ Raised Art Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ 01hor (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (07) Sparsely Vegetatad CowmVsSurface (138) Surface Water Present? Yes No v Depth (inches): i Water Table Present? Yes Na Depth (inches). rr V Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (€nchetr)- 'M(fr+ C Wetland Hydrology Present? YesNo includes ca Illa h€n e Dsscrim Recorded Data (stream gaaae, monitoring won, aerial photos, previous inspectlons), If avaliat)W Remarks: [ j • 3 +1 y�(ltd i I l �+ l i r` I�j'-t4. •.. � �'^�.1 Pr _ . _ _ ), r lt.r US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast- Version 2.0 Packet Pg. 184 6.1.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. O O R c O L APPENDIX C WETLAND RATING FORMS — WESTERN WASHINGTON r N r C d t V R r-+ R t r-+ I- N O O w r O N Z J d r.+ C d L V R r a 21-1-22082-002 Packet Pg. 185 6.1.a C r a Packet Pg. 186 6.1.a Wetland name or number A RATING SUMMARY - Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): Wetland A Date of site visit: 7/6 and 7/7/15 Rated by S. Corbin (PWS) Trained by Ecology?g Yes No Date of training i0/09 and HGM Class used for rating Slope Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Y X N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map Google Earth OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY IV (based on functions X or special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I —Total score = 23 - 27 Category II — Total score = 20 - 22 Category III — Total score = 16 - 19 X Category IV — Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings ;Site Potential H M L H M L H M L (Landscape Potential H L H M© H M Value H L H M L H L :Score Based on Ratings 5 4 4 TOTAL 13 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L, L, L 1 L Packet Pg. 187 6.1.a Wetland name or number A Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Figure # Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to anotherfigure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answerquestions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 L 2.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TIVIDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 H 1.2 1 1 Hydroperiods Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to figure above) S 1.3 1 S 4.1 S 2.1, S 5.1 1 1 Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 2 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 3 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Packet Pg. 188 6.1.a Wetland name or number A HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? 0 - go to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? 0�ur neYES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe Ifye as a •reshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO - go to 3 YES - The wetland class is Flats can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; _At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). 0-goto4 YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? X The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), X The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, X The water leaves the wetland without being impound NO - go to 5 YES - The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlan s small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). S. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Packet Pg. 189 6.1.a Wetland name or number A NO - go to 6 YES - The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO-goto7 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO-goto8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 c a� E W U Q. a� 0 0 �a 0 Cl) CD r 4 Packet Pg. 190 6.1.a Wetland name or number X SLOPE WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft of horizontal distance) Slope is 1% or less points = 3 Slope is > 1%-2% points = 2 0 Slope is > 2%-5% points = 1 Slope is greater than 5% Dints = 0 S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface or clufflayerl is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions): Yes = 3 No = 0 0 S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 in. Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > %2 of area 2 Dense, woody, plants > %: of area pints = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > % of area points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0 Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12 = H _6-11= M X 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate s? 1 es= o= 0 S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1? Other sources dog walkers/ dog poop Yes = No = 0 1 Total for 5 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: X-1-2 = M ,0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on 303(d) list? Yes =1 kz= 0 S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is on the 303(d) list. es = No = 0 1 S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes = 2 0 = 0 Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is:_ -2-4 = H _X 1= M 0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 11 Packet Pg. 191 6.1.a Wetland name or number A SLOPE WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - indicdtors that the site functions to reduce flooding anal strezim erosion S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants should be thick enough (usually> 118 in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows. Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points =1 0 All other conditions Rating of Site Potential If score is:_1= M g0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess surface runoff? Yes = 1 0 = 0 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _1= M ,$0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems: The sub -basin immediately down -gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2 Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient ❑ints = 1 1 No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0 S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control Ian? Yes = 2 0 Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is: _2-4 = H _X1= M _0 = L NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 12 Packet Pg. 192 6.1.a Wetland name or number A These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of '4 ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 X Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if.• The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20%within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points =1 0 _Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftZ. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 1 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. C:) (0) 0 None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row i { are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 13 r c m E W U 0. m 0 0 t U) ca c 0 M Cl) CD v r c m E t .r .r �3 0 a L a m C Q ti N O 0 m r O N Z J a. C N E L U c2 Q Packet Pg. 193 6.1.a Wetland name or number A H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered 1 where wood is exposed) At least % ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) X Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18 = H _7-14 = M g0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat 0 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] 0 = 0 % If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 0 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] Q = 0 % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 0 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) -2 5 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above -2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H _1-3 = M X< 1= L H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? Record the rating on the first page H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 — It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet anv of the criteria above Rating of Value If score is: _2 = H _X_1= M _0 = L points = 0 1 Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 14 Packet Pg. 194 Wetland name or number A 6.1.a WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http:/Iwdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: httn://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/12bs/iist/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE. This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). — Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. — Old-growth/Mature forests: Oid-growth west of Cascade crest - Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi - layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. — Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 - see web link above). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p.161 - see web link above). — Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report - see web link on previous page). — Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. X Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 15 Packet Pg. 195 6.1.a Wetland name or number A CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, —Vegetated, and —With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes -Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary tural Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2 Cat. I SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) Cat. —At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or Cat. II contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Yes - Go to SC 2.2 No - Go to SC 2.3 Cat. I SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://wwwl.dnr.wa.gov/nh ref esk datasearchLwnhPwetlands.;)df Yes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that ose i more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 o - Go to SC 3.2 ) SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less t over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating oanjpA4La4ake..or pond? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 a = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AN east a 3Q° cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. Cat. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog r c m E M U Q. m 0 0 U) ca c 0 L M as v Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 16 Packet Pg. 196 6.1.a Wetland name or number A SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. — Old -growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. — Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh1,11,17 Yes = Category 1 0 = Not a forested wetland for this sectlon Cat. I SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? — The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks —The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to sure near 111 10 o Cat. I Yes — Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). Cat. II —At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ftZ) Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 — Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Cat I — Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 Yes — Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M Cat. II for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No — Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes = Category II No — Go to SC 6.3 Cat. III SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Yes = Category III No = Category IV Cat. IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form N/A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 17 r c m E to U 0. m 0 0 t U) ca c 0 L M M to r c m E t t �3 0 a a m C Q ti N 0 0 to e- 0 N Z J a. c a� U c2 Q Packet Pg. 197 6.1.a Wetland A Rating Figure 1. Cowardin Class, Hydroperiod and Pollutant Generating Surfaces Packet Pg. 198 1 �..� 228t t 4 A pffH P coLO - 0 _ � - 232n J St S1�f CA P2j 14 e i {p aa 237� F w .09 AP 24OI h m 24ctk PI S ^ �-e .j • ` 242.nd 24�h d A _ €r ant 0 A NW 20bth St a ,.> 7. ' fv • � _ -n N 199t}� 100% of 1 km • Q a intensity • - ' . N 196thCU St ��� za< N 1 (;uawooeldeN looLaoS euoapew : UK) SWOUlyoe;;e 4;inn podaa Iles 8Q`d LZOORO -ld :)U9WLl3e;;d 1 is 47s6L 3N 15�11'v6CN' LS =6L N • ;,UE 1S�llSBZl�L 1S 4796 l ► kN � N D i5 LAM Q 15 147001 AhN b _p 1S 14196 L AAN is mL6 i mN � C Ci N D �r- aau� as fofdwj ( .Go a��q cfiuu3 11 sa osa a 1O) ilk sa 9naga� a ar9ro '~ tiop, ad ?I! - " , �Go}�-!Pao a� - �!. Pa}' �"3�`? � ; Pa.�A ��°YN i Q cz U a� m U 0 a U LU a cc) c 0 U Im U) N IL i) 4-c cz Q c cz m 0 0 N 6) a. m m a. 6.1.a WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (7MDts) Overview of the pruc4n Project Catalog by WRIA by County Funding opportunities Project Development Priority Lists Related Information TMDL Contacts RELATED ECOLOGY PROGRAMS ,V r_Oualitv_Emprovemen[ : 4Yatec ualitv_]morQven�er,t ProieC, b_-v-W A > >"�Rtq 6;-�efa�-�an�n�am�sh WRIA 8: Cedar-Satrimarnish The following table lists overview information for water quality improvement projects (including total maximum daily loads, or TMDLs) for this water resource inventory area WR ). Please use links (where available) for more information on a project. Counties • King • Snohomish Water quality Waterbody Name Pollutants Status" TMDL Lead flimlhnoer Lake Total Phosphorus Approved by EPA ri a Shohlom 425-649-7286 Bear -Evans Creek Basin Fecal Coliform Approved by EPA Joan Nolan 425-649-4425 Dissolved Oxygen Approved by EPA Temperature Cattans Lake Total Phosphorus Approved by EPA Tricia Shoblom Has an implementation 425-649-7288 plan Issanuah Creek Basin Fecal Coliform Approved by EPA Joan Nolan 425-649-4425 Little Bear Creek Fecal Coliform Approved by EPA Ralph. Syricek Tributaries: 425-649-7036 Trout Stream Great Dane Creek Cutthroat Creek North Creek Fecal Coliform Approved by EPA Ralph Svricek Has an implementation 425-649-7036 plan Pipers Creek Fecal Coliform Approved by EPA Joan Nolan 425-649-4425 Sammamish River Dissolved Oxygen Field work starts Ralph Svricek Temperature summer 2015 425-649-7036 Swamp Creek Fecal Coliform Approved by EPA Ralph Svricek Has an implementation 425-649-7036 Wetland A Rating Figure 4. WRIA 8 TMDL Screen Capture Packet Pg. 201 6.1.a Wetland name or number _ B _ RATING SUMMARY - Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): Wetland B Date of site visit: 7/6 and 7/7/15 Rated by S Corbin, (PWS) Trained by Ecology?_X Yes No Date of training 10109 and HGM Class used for rating Depressional Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Y X N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined) Source of base aerial photo/map _ale Farth OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY III (based on functions X or special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I —Total score = 23 - 27 Category II — Total score = 20 - 22 X Category III —Total score = 16 - 19 Category IV —Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H L H ( L H M L Landscape Potential ® M L H M L H M Value H OM L H M L H © L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 7 7 4 18 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II I II III IV Interdunal None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H, H, M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L, L, L 1 c as E W U 0. as 0 0 U) 0 L M as Packet Pg. 202 6.1.a Wetland name or number B Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington ❑epressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # _ Cowardin plant classes `D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 1 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 1 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) D 2.2, D 5.2 1 Map of the contributing basin 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat D 4.3, D 5.3 2 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 4 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 5 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to anotherfigure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Packet Pg. 203 6.1.a Wetland name or number B HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? 0 - go to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO - go to 3 YES - The wetland class is Flats can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at anytime of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; _At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). NO - go to 4 YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO - go to 5 YES - The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). S. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Packet Pg. 204 6.1.a Wetland name or number B t- go to 6 YES - The wetland class is Riverine erine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO - go to 7 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area wit no no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO-goto8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have more than Z HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 4 Packet Pg. 205 6.1.a Wetland name or number B DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points 0 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. 3 points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (-or duff layer] is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions). Yes = 4 Co = 0 0 D 1.3. Characteristics _and _distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > % of area points = 3 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal pondine or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. 4 Area seasonally ponded is > %: total area of wetland aints = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < X total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above g Rating of Site Potential If score is:�12-16 = H X 6-11= M �0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? es = No = 0 1 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? IEEDNo = 0 1 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 <E0 0 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions.3? Source residential.Agg poopfrom dog walkers es - No = 0 1 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: X 3 or 4 = H _1 or 2 = M �0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 (o _ 0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes = No = 0 1 S D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (an no-_ if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 0 1 Rating of Value If score is: —2-4 = H X 1= M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 5 Packet Pg. 206 6.1.a Wetland name or number B DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points Q 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet omts = 3 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 3 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit Dints = The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 10 Rating of Site Potential If score is: _12-16 = H __ X 6-11 = M —0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? es = 1 No = 0 1 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? es - No = 0 1 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? es = No = 0 1 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:X3 = H _1 or 2 = M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): • Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down -gradient of unit. points = 2 1 • Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient. <jaints = Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points = 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control Ian? Yes=2 No=O Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is: _.2-4 = H X 1= M 0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page c m E W U Q. m 0 0 U) ca c 0 L M as v r Packet Pg. 207 6.1.a Wetland name or number B These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of % ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 0 xForested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if.• The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 _XSeasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 _X_Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 1 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftz. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle 1 If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 -19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. 0 None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points 0 All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 201S 13 r c m W U 0. m 0 0 t U) ca c 0 M Q Packet Pg. 208 6.1.a Wetland name or number B H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. X Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). XStanding snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered 3 where wood is exposed) At least''/< ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) X Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 5 Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18 = H _7-14 = M _X_0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat 0 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/210 0 % If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 0 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon _ points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat 0 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] 0 = 0 % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 3 points = 2 0 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use oints = (- 2} -2 <- 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above _2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:4-6 = H �1-3 = M X < 1= L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 — It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources 1 — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is: _2 = H _y_1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 14 Packet Pg. 209 Wetland name or number B 6.1.a WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. tt a v ub ications 00165 w fw00 65. f or access the list from here: btti):I/wdfw.wa.gov/conservationlphs/lisw Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE. This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. — Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. — Old-growth/Mature forests: Qld-growth west of Cascade crest - Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi - layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 - see web link above). — Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — WesUide Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 - see web link above). — Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report - see web link on previous page). — Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. — Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. X Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 15 Packet Pg. 210 6.1.a Wetland name or number B CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, —Vegetated, and —With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes -Go to SC 1.1 = Nvt an estuarine wetla SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2 Cat. I SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) Cat. I —At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or Cat. II contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category If SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Yes - Go to SC 2.2 No - Go to SC 2.3 Cat. SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes = Category I EHa WHCV I SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://ww►nil.dnr.,wa.goy/nho/refdesk datasearch/wnhpwetiands.odf Yes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No - Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating o or pond? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 N❑ = Is not a bo SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at eas a 0% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. Cat. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 16 Packet Pg. 211 6.1.a Wetland name or number B SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. — Old -growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. — Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in 53 cm . Yes = Category I o =Not a forested wetland for this sectio Cat. I SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? —The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks —The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs t easured near the bottom Cat. Yes - Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing , and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). Cat. II —At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ftZ) Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 — Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Cat I — Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 Yes - Go to SC 6.1 E�not an Interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on t e orm a es , ,H or H,H,M Cat. II for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes = Category II No - Go to SC 6.3 Cat. III SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Yes = Category III No = Category IV Cat. IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics N/A If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form r c m E W U Q. m 0 0 U) ca c 0 L M Q Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 17 Packet Pg. 212 6.1.a Pol Ge Sul buf Wetland B Rating Figure 1. Cowardin Class, Hydroperiod, and Pollutant Generating Surface Packet Pg. 213 6.1.a Wetland B Rating Figure 2. Contributing Basin C Cl) 6D r N a+ C d E t V t 3 0 a a� L m N m 0 Q ti N O O to r O N Z J d C N E L V cC Q Packet Pg. 214 «g _ , ■ '. m -CL � � \ $ .+ •y . . /�, � � � _ «- ! � / ,. �j _ . g)atSte -.75- \ � ? /a � 2' 7 ' 9 - » .;jS - ■ e ~%`. , ./ ./. $ \. � . ,.• & .#_ �. t �. . � . �7 • . • - . � tad\. . / , ■ k0ƒ PI SW, . f 7 '/ ^ . .Ll. . ,• � � ' ,2n$S . .242hd I oR% &� /06$ St n —N 2@e5m� t ■ -! ± a '-- . `_ • ® � \ •« � . •,- < � � /.� . . m �• i - , .���� &, ± \ƒ!]&e$'q ET. �/�k .\I(kS |, /N]g+w'! : . � �| • � • � � !\ RQo § & � , (}ueweoejd9N looyoS euoapew : UK) s;uauaycIe;;e y;inn podaa Iles EIOV LZOORO -ld :;u9uay3e;;d is4i5613H 35g3,6LN IS41961N -1SiilyfiLN ---ISgj6tfiLnIVN A fi m y II N tS41961.AAN LU z { v IS [Ri6i MN i5 4385: Mil •q ua;. #S 4166! N +[4I` 4 �n a � ci )A r P�+ti1q S 1S 0 Z N 15 4100Z 1S 41pMI1 OZ a �, rr�i r. A i p �. 't'OJ1'-'�V'G'�194�• --- 6u1s1 iiili .:�- -�� - - 11ILS x�6 RW Z - .-IS WCOZ A&N- -- - —� - NISISpLIZ&t ^' 14 MS.is iptutc ? _ -- _ ILphtptlOM i r ''•., l D . AA S IS 419PN F 1 , 'r; e" Y rAst5 1 " ` :5 a5urladsa MS l$ PUZ-SZ �-� 41 i S Wla'iz` i - � m ti fl - ' fV15 75 LIiSZL w y � f, a3jiq aaio�dus� ZTl.�aha�i�aafio1du9a -? nosa a} odi tl� 4a�isa�mosa ayeiod�© tiu ��u � _ r �GoRio alH M '" pap¢4S 6uizpg paus!A 4W 'fd N 6 a m m a O t cn c O U co co O co a� 7 LL O C cd m C cz N �i 6.1.a WATER QUAL"le IMPROVEMENT PROIECT5 (TMOLS) Overview of the process Project Catalog by wrttA by County Funding Opportunities Project Development Priority Lists Related Information TMDL Contacts RELATED ECOLOGY PROGRAMS Water Ounlity Improyemel'It -- WaW Ouality Improyement Promegg by WR A> \M.F;I=A 8; Crda�-oamrnamish WRIA 8: Cedar-Sammamish The following table lists overview information for water quality improvement projects (including total maximum daily loads, or TMDLs) for this water resource inventory area (WRIA). Please use links (where available) for more information on a project. Counties • King • Snohomish Water Quality Waterbody Name Pollutants Status" TMDL Lead €la€ allinaer Lake Total Phosphorus Approved by EPA Tricia Shoblom 425-649-7286 Bear -Evans Creek Basin Fecal Coliform Approved by EPA Joan Nolan 425-649-4425 Dissolved Oxygen Approved by EPA Temperature Cottage -Lake Total Phosphorus Approved by EPA Tricia Shoblom Has an implementation 425-649-7288 plan Issaouah Creek Basin Fecal Coliform Approved by EPA Joan Nolan 425-649-4425 Little Bear Creek Fecal Coliform Approved by EPA Ralph Svricek Tributaries: 425-649-7036 Trout Stream Great Dane Creek Cutthroat Creek North Creek Fecal Coliform Approved by EPA Ralph Svrjeek Has an implementation 425-649-7036 plan Pipers Creek Fecal Coliform Approved by EPA Joan Nolan 425-649-4425 Sammamish River Dissolved Oxygen Field work starts Ralph Svricek Temperature summer 2015 425-649-7036 SwampCree Fecal Coliform Approved by EPA Rall2b svfio Has an implementation 425-649-7036 Wetland B Rating Figure 5. WRIA 8 TMDL Screen Shot Packet Pg. 217 6.1.a Wetland name or number C RATING SUMMARY — Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): Wetland C Date of site visit: 7/6 and 7/7/15 Rated by S. Corbin PWS Trained by Ecology? X Yes No Date of training10/09 anal : E HGM Class used for rating Slope Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Y X N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined) Source of base aerial photo/map GGoogle Earth OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY IV (based on functions or special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I — Total score = 23 - 27 Category II — Total score = 20 - 22 Category III — Total score = 16 - 19 X Category IV — Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving f Hydrologic Habitat Water Quality Circle the appropriate ratings :Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H QJM L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL 'Score Based on 5 4 4 13 Qnr1.,0C 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H, H, M 7 = H, H, L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3=L,L,L 1 Packet Pg. 218 6.1.a Wetland name or number C Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes . H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to anotherfigure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Frinee Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 1 Hydroperiods H 1.2 1 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 1 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 1 Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 2 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 3 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 4 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Packet Pg. 219 6.1.a Wetland name or number C HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are ater levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO -- go to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO - go to 3 YES - The wetland class is Flats nd can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at anytime of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; _At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). NO - go to 4 YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does a entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ..The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO - go to 5 YES - The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasiona y in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). S. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Packet Pg. 220 Wetland name or number. C 6.1.a NO-goto6 YES - The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO-goto7 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO-goto8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplam, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 4 Packet Pg. 221 6.1.a Wetland name or number C SLOPE WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1%slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft of horizontal distance) Slope is 1% or less points = 3 0 Slope is > 1%-2% points = 2 Slope is > 2%-5% points = 1 Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface {or duff layer] is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions): Yes = 3 No = 0 0 S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 in. Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 0 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > % of area points = 3 Dense, woody, plants > % of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > % of area points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0 Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12 = H _6-11= M XO-5 = L Record the rating on the first page S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes=1 No= 0 0 S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1? Other sources — Dog walkers/ dog poopYes = 1 No = 0 1 Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above I Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:. X1-2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0 1 S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0 0 — Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is:2-4 = H X1= M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page r c m E M U 0. m 0 0 U) ca c 0 L M as v Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 201S 11 Packet Pg. 222 Wetland name or number C 6.1.a SLOPE WETLANDS Hydrologic lFurn;ft-us - Indicators that the site funcl.lans to reduce ffooftg and stream erosian S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants should be thick enough (usually >'Is in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows. 0 Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points =1 All other conditions points = 0 Rating of Site Potential If score is:_1= M _X__0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess 0 surface runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: _1= M _X0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems: The sub -basin immediately down -gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2 1 Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient points =1 No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0 S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes=2 No=O 0 Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is:__2-4 = H X 1= M _0 = L NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 12 Packet Pg. 223 6.1.a Wetland name or number C These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of Mac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 X Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if., The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 0 XSatu rated only 1 type present: points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftz. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 1 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. 0 0 None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 13 Packet Pg. 224 6.1.a Wetland name or number. C H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) 1 At least % ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) X Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18 = H _7-14 = M _X_0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitatQ+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]Q = 0 % If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 0 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat+ [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]—(L- = 0 % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 0 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) -2 S 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above -2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H _1-3 = M __X_< 1= L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highestscore that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 — It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species 1 — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is:__2 = H X 1= M __0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 14 Packet Pg. 225 Wetland name or number C 6.1.a WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habit is listed by WDEW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http:llwdfw.wa.gov/12ublications/00165 wdfw00165 f or access the list from here: http-//wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/pbs/­JisV) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE. This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). — Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. U) ca c — Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-gMwth west of Cascade crest - Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi- -00a layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mgturg fores_t.� - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. r — Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak r component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 - see web link above). E — Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and t terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. v t .r — Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet 3 prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 - see web link above). o a a� — Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. cc — Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and m Q Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report - ti see web link on previous page). c 0 to — Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, c ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. 04 Z J a- - Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. c a� — Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, E and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Q �- Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Packet Pg. 226 6.1.a Wetland name or number C_ CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and —With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes -Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2 Cat. I SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) Cat. —At least 3/ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or Cat. II contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Yes - Go to SC 2.2 No - Go to SC 2.3 Cat. I SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://wwwl dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhp.wetlands.pdf Yes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No - Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. Cat. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 16 r c m E a� a m 0 0 t U U) R c 0 �a M o� v Packet Pg. 227 6.1.a Wetland name or number SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous_ acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. — Old -growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. — Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section Cat. I SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? — The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks —The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) Cat. Yes - Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). Cat. II —At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 — Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Cat I — Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 Yes - Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M Cat. II for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes = Category II No - Go to SC 6.3 Cat. III SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Yes = Category III No = Category IV Cat. IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form r c m E W U Q. m 0 0 U) ca c 0 L 2 Q Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 17 Packet Pg. 228 6.1.a C Rating Figure 1. Cowardin Class, Hydroperiod, Pollutant Generating Surf Packet Pg. 229 1 9- m . _. . .p • • ' \: . - :& _' ■ . \.'22my f ^ $ 23�s{ St- %t •/ • - / @ 232nd StS. . » / , __ 2« \ CD 7 . ' * - « _ . < ' 2 p�|i \ ƒ . , � •ƒ. • m sic� , \ \ �y\/ • .�,.� � J \ S o•- a3\�/ & m � 2 � "gym! ƒ 2//§R S I , \y 2 2nd 24 d . EkAor« � � � ■ ' NVV /0 w h St . a §' 0 � 5th! \ 2 a a . , . = t r ^/ �\ }, ~ \' Onn. o • ��.. - /\�/ - CD,: \ /_ ■■ of � , r 2 ,. . g; `\ f 2 N 1 ■, _ °k' °' 'f 4@at/ S! intensity land y 2- � ~ • ro , � 2 I5 God 1e \ _ . $ Z- | ®. _ -: • �. � -- —�f - ` ' z f - N t 6r Most Visited .•.: Getting Started ..., i 404 -File or ditedory... Ll, 404 - File nfd &-toty ....: co"Fzte Resources (I) IND Corporate Resources Exnptoyee directory C.) ,--; Frnp€oyee Qirec active: LJ"' StSW' --'�28Sh•S[SW — - --psi'.•. � i . �i Fark sar.a. - -2301h St u 232.ndStSW ` Esperance V 4� 8ob" _ -- Sa - rkt ✓arO t MO Waehztsett Rd 24 �t SW oc t rZ� ra. 3a th St SW 1, E v C Yrood�vay o 23&h St SW r MOth St SW : Caur1[v 1 9 a --242n'd'3iSW=.� 24FndSSSW �4 241tlt 5ti 5W -' h- -Ing z 7 z # .0 NW 200Ih St x g NW T$71Et $t ' NW 198th St f4w t $61h St c d r N N � 1 2M ti: I ri � �_ IJYIt i 95th St N 200th 5t N 1951h St ti"'.'Q- a �' ? I-tcFv�cvrl G� N 20 St - N1&9th 51 arrester, rn ;r N 195th St �N' .� asathstE 195th St Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) f 6.1.a WATER QUALM Water Ouality Imurovement Water uality Improvement Projects by WRIA =- WRIA, S: Cedar-aamroan-izh IMPROVEMENT PR03ECT5 �TMpLsj WRIA 8: Cedar-Sammamish Overylew of the process Project Caratng The following table lists overview information for water quality improvement projects (including total maximum daily loads, or TMDLs) for this water resource by WRIA inventory area (WRIA). Please use links (where available) for more information .- byCvulrty on a project. Funding Opportunities F l If � a 4) Project Development Counties HttF O Priority Lists • King jp M Related Information • Snohomish TMDL Cuntacts r`,% �'�'A:>> • I RELATED ECOLOGY ti p 0 PROGRAMS Water quality Waterbody Name Pollutants Status— TMDL Lead Ballinger Lake Total Phosphorus Approved by EPA Tricia Shoblom 425-649-7288 Bear -Evans Creek Basin Fecal Coliform Approved by EPA Joan Nolan Dissolved Oxygen Approved by EPA 425-649-4425 Temperature Total Phosphorus Approved by EPA Trici$ Shahlom Cottage Lake Has an implementation 425-649-7288 plan lssaouah Creek Basin Fecal Coliform Approved by EPA Joan Nolan 425-649-4425 Little Bear Creek Fecal Coliform Approved by EPA Ralph Svricek Tributaries: 425-649-7036 Trout Stream Great Dane Creek Cutthroat Creek North Creek Fecal Coliform Approved by EPA Ralph SvT ce Has an implementation 425-649-7036 plan Firers Creek Fecal Coliform Approved by EPA Joan Nolan 425.649.4425 Sammamish River Dissolved Oxygen Field work starts Ralph Svricek Temperature summer 2015 425-649-7036 swamp Creek Fecal Coliform Approved by EPA Ralph Svdcek Has an implementation 42$-649-7036 and C Rating Figure 3. WRIA 8 TMDL Screen Shot Packet Pg. 232 1 6.1.a SHANNON &WILSON, INC. APPENDIX D IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR WETLAND DELINEATION/1VIITIGATION AND/OR STREAM CLASSIFICATION REPORT 21-1-22082-002 Packet Pg. 233 6.1.a C r a Packet Pg. 234 6.1.a - SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Attachment to and part of Report 21-1-20581-010 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Date: September 15, 2015 To: Ms. Taine Wilton Edmonds School District #15 IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR WETLAND DELINEATION/MITIGATION AND/OR STREAM CLASSIFICATION REPORT E W U A WETLAND/STREAM REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS. Wetland delineation/mitigation and stream classification reports are based on a unique set of project -specific factors. These typically c include the general nature of the project and property involved, its size, and its configuration; historical use and practice; the location r of the project on the site and its orientation; and the level of additional risk the client assumed by virtue of limitations imposed upon n the exploratory program. The jurisdiction of any particular wetland/stream is determined by the regulatory authority(s) issuing the c permit(s). As a result, one or more agencies will have jurisdiction over a particular wetland or stream with sometimes confusing regulations. It is necessary to involve a consultant who understands which agency(s) has jurisdiction over a particular wetland/stream and what the agency(s) permitting requirements are for that wetland/stream. To help reduce or avoid potential costly problems, have the consultant determine how any factors or regulations (which can change subsequent to the report) may affect the recommendations. v T Unless your consultant indicates otherwise, your report should not be used: P. If the size or configuration of the proposed project is altered. ► If the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified. ► If there is a change of ownership. ► For application to an adjacent site. ► For construction at an adjacent site or on site. ► Following floods, earthquakes, or other acts of nature. Wetland/stream consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that may develop if they are not consulted after factors considered in their reports have changed. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to notify your consultant of any factors that may have changed prior to submission of our final report. Wetland boundaries identified and stream classifications made by Shannon & Wilson are considered preliminary until validated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and/or the local jurisdictional agency. Validation by the regulating agency(s) provides a certification, usually written, that the wetland boundaries verified are the boundaries that will be regulated by the agency(s) until a specified date, or until the regulations are modified, and that the stream has been properly classified. Only the regulating agency(s) can provide this certification. MOST WETLAND/STREAM "FINDINGS" ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES. Site exploration identifies wetland/stream conditions at only those points where samples are taken and when they are taken, but the physical means of obtaining data preclude the determination of precise conditions. Consequently, the information obtained is intended to be sufficiently accurate for design, but is subject to interpretation. Additionally, data derived through sampling and subsequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by the consultant who then renders an opinion about overall conditions, the likely reaction to proposed construction activity, and/or appropriate design. Even under optimal circumstances, actual conditions may differ from those thought to exist because no consultant, no matter how qualified, and no exploration program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock, and time. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help reduce their impacts. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their consultants through the construction or wetland mitigation/stream classification stage to identify variances, to conduct additional evaluations that may be needed, and to recommend solutions to problems encountered on site. Page 1 of 1/2015 Packet Pg. 235 6.1.a WETLAND/STREAM CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE. Since natural systems are dynamic systems affected by both natural processes and human activities, changes in wetland boundaries and stream conditions may be expected. Therefore, delineated wetland boundaries and stream classifications cannot remain valid for an indefinite period of time. The Corps typically recognizes the validity of wetland delineations for a period of five years after completion. Some city and county agencies recognize the validity of wetland delineations for a period of two years. If a period of years have passed since the wetland/stream report was completed, the owner is advised to have the consultant reexamine the wetland/stream to determine if the classification is still accurate. Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or water fluctuations may also affect conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of the wetland/stream report. The consultant should be kept apprised of any such events and should be consulted to determine if additional evaluation is necessary. THE WETLAND/STREAM REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION. Costly problems can occur when plans are developed based on misinterpretation of a wetland/stream report. To help avoid these problems, the consultant should be retained to work with other appropriate professionals to explain relevant wetland, stream, geological, and other findings, and to review the adequacy of plans and specifications relative to these issues. DATA FORMS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT. Final data forms are developed by the consultant based on interpretation of field sheets (assembled by site personnel) and laboratory evaluation of field samples. Only final data forms customarily are included in a report. These data forms should not, under any circumstances, be drawn for inclusion in other drawings because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. Although photographic reproduction eliminates this problem, it does nothing to reduce the possibility of misinterpreting the forms. When this occurs, delays, disputes, and unanticipated costs are frequently the result. To reduce the likelihood of data form misinterpretation, contractors, engineers, and planners should be given ready access to the complete report. Those who do not provide such access may proceed under the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors, engineers, and planners helps prevent costly problems and the adversarial attitudes that aggravate them to a disproportionate scale. READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY. Because a wetland delineation/stream classification is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against consultants. To help prevent this problem, consultants have developed a number of clauses for use in written transmittals. These are not exculpatory clauses designed to foist the consultant's liabilities onto someone else; rather, they are definitive clauses that identify where the consultant's responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your report, and you are encouraged to read them closely. Your consultant will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions. THERE MAY BE OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO REDUCE RISK. Your consultant will be pleased to discuss other techniques or designs that can be employed to mitigate the risk of delays and to provide a variety of alternatives that may be beneficial to your project. Contact your consultant for further information. r c m E a� a m W 0 0 U) R c 0 L C� C M v Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 236 6.1.a Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report New Madrona K-8 Project 9300 2361h Street SW Edmonds, Washington DEOTEOHHIOAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL OONSULTANTO Excellence. Innovation. Service. Value, Since 1954. August 6, 2015 R=%-PER: 2016 DEVELO MENTEE RVICES COU Submitted To Ms. Taine Wiltor Edmonds School District #1E 20420 681h Avenue Wes Lynnwood, Washington 9803E By Shannon & Wilson, Inc 400 N 34th Street, Suite 10( Seattle, Washington 9810: Attachment 1( P LN2016002 i Packet Pg. 237 6.1.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................ I .................... I 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS ........... l r c 2.1 Regional Geology.....................................................................................................1 .. 4) 2.2 Regional Seismicity........... u as 3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION ........2 0 4.0 LABORATORY TESTING .............................. 3 (n 5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.............................................................................................3 �a 0 5.1 Site Geology and Subsurface Conditions. .................... .................................. ........ -3 L -0 5.2 Hydrogeologic Conditions.........................................................................................4 M 5.3 Infiltration Potential...................................................................................................4 Cl) CD v 6.0 ENGINEERING STUDIES AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ....................4 v 6.1 General.......................................................................................................................4 6.2 Foundation Design 5 E 6.3 Seismic Design ........................................................................................................... 6.4 Lateral Earth Pressures...............................................................................................5 6.5 Lateral Resistance......................................................................................................6 6.6 Recommendations......................................................................................................6 3 6.7 Earthwork and Use of On -site Soils...........................................................................7 0 a 7.0 ADDITIONAL STiJDIES......................................................................................................8 L ca 8.0 I.IMITATIONS.......................................................................................... c 9.0 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................10 a FIGURES 1 Vicinity Map 2 Site and Exploration Plan 21-1-22082-001-R1.doc.V%rpf1k 21-1-22082-001 Packet Pg. 238 6.1.a TABLE OF CONTENTS (cant.) SHANNON &WILSON, INC. APPENDICES A Test Pit Logs B Laboratory Test Results C Supplementary Soil Data D Important Information About Your Geoteclu&al/Enviromnental Report 21-1-22082-001-R1.dooxAspgk ii 21-1-22082-001 Packet Pg. 239 6.1.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT NEW MADRONA K-8 PROJECT 9300 236T" STREET SW EDMONDS9 WASHINGTON 1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Edmonds School District No. 15 plans to construct a new Madrona K-8 School on the south side of the property at 9300 23611i Street SW in Edmonds, Washington, as shown in the Vicinity Map (Figure 1). The property contains the existing Madrona K-8 School and is bounded by 236"i Street to the north, residential developments on the east and south sides, and the former Woodway Elementary School on the west. The site has a number of distinct surface features including a parking lot on the northwest side, track and large open field area on the southwest side, and a baseball field on the southeast side. There is a densely wooded ravine area along the east side of the property and a densely wooded slope on the west side of the property that slopes down to the former Woodway Elementary School. The purpose of this study is to perform a preliminary evaluation of the subsurface conditions to help facilitate the selection of the new school building location. Our scope of services included excavating 16 test pits around the southern portion of the property to evaluate the soil conditions. The test pits ranged in depth from about 1.5 to 5 feet. Detailed soil conditions are presented in the test pit logs included in Appendix A. Laboratory testing was done to determine the water content and grain size distribution on select samples taken from the test pits. The water content results are shown in the logs presented in Appendix A, and results of the grain size analyses are shown in Appendix B. In addition, available reports and geologic maps were used to filrther evaluate the subsurface conditions, and supplementary soil data from these sources are shown in Appendix C. This report presents the preliminary geotechnical engineering findings at the site, and includes initial reconunendations regarding the infiltration, foundations, seismic design, lateral earth pressures, earthwork, and construction considerations. 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS 2.1 Regional Geology The site is located in Edmonds, Washington, which is within a region known as the Puget Lowland. The Puget Lowland is a structural depression bordered by the Olympic and Cascade Mountain ranges that is generally within about 500 feet of sea level. The geology of the area has 21.1-22082-001-R1.doc.V%Np'1k 21-1-22082-001 Packet Pg. 240 6.1.a SHANNON &WILSON, INC. been influenced by repeated cycles of glaciation, which worked to till the lowland to significant depths with a complex sequence of glacial and nonglacial deposits. The most recent glacier to impact the area, the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, overrode the area with up to 3,000 feet of ice in some locations. Following the last glaciations, the erosion of some of the glacially overridden soil deposits, as well as local deposition and human placement of additional soil deposits, have finther complicated the local geology (Troost and Booth, 2008). The project site itself is situated on a ridge underlain by Quaternary Vashon till (Qvt) that was observed at relatively shallow depths during the current subsurface investigation. This geologic unit was found to be a very dense, gray to gray brown deposit consisting of silty sand with variable gravel and cobble content. Other explorations performed to the west of the site (Shannon & Wilson, laic. [S&W], 2007) encountered deposits of Quateernary Advanced Outwash (Qva). This geologic unit is characterized by dense to very dense sands and gravels with variable amounts of silt. Qva is typically less compact and more pervious than Qvt. Geologic maps of the Snohomish county region indicate that the contact between the glacial till and advanced outwash material is near the slope on the west side of the property. 2.2 Regional Seismicity The Puget Sound Lowland is located in the forearc of the Cascadia Subduction Zone. The seismicity of the region is largely derived from the subduction of the Juan de Fuca Plate beneath the North American Plate. The convergence of these two plates results in a number of generally east -west -trending faults, as well as basin and uplift regions (Troost and Booth, 2008). The seismic hazard of the region comes from three major sources: a major subduction type events, deep intraplate events (such as the 2001 Nisqually earthquake), and earthquakes due to rupture of shallow crustal faults. Tile site itself is located a reasonable distance from subduction and intraslab sources, and as a result, the more local, crustal faults are believed to drive the seismic hazard for the site. The closest known potentially active fault to the site is the South Whidbey Island Fault (SWIF). The SWIF is a shallow, strike -slip fault that is believed to be capable of producing a magnitude 7.5 event, which could impose significant seismic demands at the site. 3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION A total of 16 test pits were excavated on Wednesday, June 24, 2015, by Clearcreek contracting under subcontract to S&W. The test pits were located throughout the site as shown in the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. The test pits were dug using a track -mounted backhoe and 21-1.22082.001-R) AocVwWIL 21-1-22082-001 2 Packet Pg. 241 6.1.a SHANNON &WILSON, INC. reached depths ranging from about 1.5 to 5 feet. During the excavation process, the soil and groundwater conditions were observed by an engineer from our office. Soil samples were collected and transported to our Seattle laboratory for analysis and testing. Following the excavations, the test pits were backfilled with the excavated material and tamped down using the excavator bucket in 1-foot-thick lifts. Once backfilled, the surface of the test pits was rolled for compaction and the grass layer was replaced. Logs of the test pits are presented in Appendix A. It should be noted that the test pit locations provided in Figure 2 are approximate and surface elevations shown in the test pit logs are estimated from Google Earth. It is expected this information can be updated after the results of the site topographic survey are available. 4.0 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was conducted on several soil samples collected from the test pit explorations to assist in classification and characterization of the subsurface soils. The laboratory tests included natural moisture content determination and grain size analysis. The natural moishire contents are indicated in the test pit logs in Appendix A. The results of the grain size analyses are presented in Appendix B. 5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5.1 Site Geology and Subsurface Conditions Our initial explorations indicate that the site is covered with a thin layer of topsoil that is underlain by a deposit of Vashon glacial till. The glacial till is likely underlain by advanced outwash material, but fiirther exploration is needed to determine the depth to the contact between the materials underlying the proposed project site. All 16 of the lest pits encountered glacial till material at depths ranging from 0.5 to 3.5 feet below the ground surface. Test pits performed on the west side of the site, near the track, had variable amounts of fill overlying the till material. Fill material appeared to be reworked glacial till and had thicknesses ranging from approximately 1 to 2.5 feet. Contaminated soils were not found in any of the test pits that were dug. Grain size analyses of the upper fill layer of test pit TP-16 and glacial till layers of TP-5 and TP-6 indicated similar grain size distributions and that native soils contain between 23 and 30 percent of fines, shown in Figure B-1, Appendix B. We reviewed logs of borings associated a pipeline for the Brightwater Project (CDM Smith, Inc. [CDM], 2006), the alignment of which is located approximately 1,500 feet 21.1.22082.001-R1.aoc. %%p4k 21-1-22082-001 3 Packet Pg. 242 6.1.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. south of the Madrona School, along the King County/Snohomish County line. Brightwater borings E-106 and E-206, located southeast of the project site at a similar elevation to that of the Madrona School, indicated that the thickness of the glacial till is approximately 30 feet thick. Brightwater boring E-105, located southwest of the project site at a lower elevation than borings E-106 and E-206, indicated that the glacial till is approximately 2 feet thick. Logs of the Brightwater borings are included in Appendix C. 5.2 Hydrogcologic Conditions Groundwater was not encountered during the test pit explorations and a nearby exploration approximately 3,000 feet west of the site did not observe groundwater within about 50 feet of the ground surface (S&W, 2007). 5.3 Infiltration Potential Infiltration rates within the glacial till deposit underlying the majority of the site would likely be less than 0.5 inch per hour and would not be conducive for use with an infiltration system. However, we expect that the glacial till may be underlain by more permeable soils at relatively shallow depths. Infiltration rates within the advanced outwash material underlying the glacial till could range from 0.5 to 2 inches per hour. As the depth to the advanced outwash material could potentially be within 30 feet of the surface, it may be feasible to install an infiltration system at this site consisting of dry wells or infiltration trenches. We reconunend additional exploration and testing to identify the depth to the advance outwash soils and the specific infiltration rates within the project area. The additional exploration would include drilling a well to determine depth of groundwater and a second well to perform a downhole infiltration test. 6.0 ENGINEERING STUDIES AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 General Based on the observations made during the subsurface exploration program and information reviewed for the project, we expect the glacial till material will provide good support for conventional spread footing foundations with minimal settlements. The following subsections provide detailed recommendations on the following topics: * Foundation design ■ Seismic design ■ Lateral earth pressures ■ Lateral resistance ■ Earthwork and use of on -site soils 21.1-22082-001-R 1.docv%%p,9k 21-1-22082-001 4 Packet Pg. 243 6.1.a SHANNON MILSON, INC. ■ Wet weather constriction ■ Construction considerations 6.2 Foundation Design The subsurface explorations encountered undisturbed, very dense, native glacial till soils across the entire site. Spread footings founded in the dense, native till material may be designed with an allowable bearing pressure of 10,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Spread footings that are founded in compacted structural backfill placed above the glacial till may be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 4,000 psf. Any fill material that is to be reused should be evaluated by a geoteclrnical engineer to see if they are suitable for use. We recommend that additional subsurface explorations be performed at the proposed building site once that information is available from the design team. If the native glacial till material or compacted structural backfill is used as the foundation bearing soils, it is anticipated that any settlement that occurs will be essentially instantaneous as the load is applied during construction. If the footings are designed for the bearing pressures noted above, then the total footing settlements will be less than '/2 inch. Differential settlements would be about one-half of the total settlement. However, if the entire structure is founded on the glacial till, then differential settlements could be negligible. 6.3 Seismic Design The seismic design of the structure should be in accordance with the International Code Council, Inc. International Building Code (IBC) (International Code Council, Inc., 2015). The IBC design criteria is based on a target risk of structural collapse of 1 percent in 50 years. The soil profile is assessed by assigning a site class definition. It is our opinion that based on the soil classification, i.e., very dense, the site can be classified as Site Class C. Seismic inputs are the short -period maximum spectra acceleration, SS, and spectral acceleration at a period of one second, S 1. Using the map provided in the IBC, which corresponds to Site Class B sites, the mapped values of SS and S 1 are approximately 1.262 and 0.493 grams, respectively. The site coefficients for the given spectral acceleration values and Site Class C are 1.0 and 1.31 for Fa and rv, respectively. Seismic hazards such as liquefaction, and fault rupture are not present at the project site. 6.4 Lateral Earth Pressures Lateral earth pressures will act on portions of the building as well as on retaining walls. The magnitude and distribution of these lateral pressures will depend on many factors, including but 21-1-22082-001-Rl.daodwpllk 21-1-22082-001 Packet Pg. 244 6.1.a SHANNON MMILSON, INC. allowed to move at least 0.001 times the wall height, the wall is considered flexible and active earth pressures can be used. If the wall is considered to be inflexible then at -rest earth pressures must be used. The active and at -rest earth pressures, evaluated using an equivalent fluid unit weight, are estimated to be on the order of 30 and 50 pounds per cubic feet (pef), respectively. The values given above assume a permanent wall structure, the ground surface behind the wall is level, and that proper drainage is installed to prevent the buildup of pore water pressure behind the wall. The total earth pressures should be analyzed for seismic loading conditions using a dynamic load increment equal to a percentage of the static earth force. The percentage load increase for seismic condition was developed to be consistent with a pseudo -static analysis using the Mononobe-Okabe equation for lateral earth pressures (Kramer, 1996) and a horizontal seismic coefficient of 0.32. The load increase for seismic conditions is recommended to be a uniformly distributed load equal to 16H, where H is the height of the wall. Note the seismic coefficient is not equal to the peak ground acceleration (PGA) expected to be encountered at the site in a design event. The PGA is experienced only a few times within the record of earthquake shaking, and the actual earthquake ground motion is cyclic in nature, not static. Values of the seismic coefficient are thus typically one third to one half the value of the PGA that may be experienced at the site during a design level event. 6.5 Lateral Resistance Footings may resist lateral loads using a combination of base friction and passive pressure against the buried or embedded portion of the footings and buried wall. We recommend that base sliding resistance be determined using an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.7 for a concrete foundation founded on on -site glacial till or compacted structural fill. Passive earth pressures can be evaluated using an equivalent unit weight of 400 pcf. This value includes a factor of safety of 1.5. 6.6 Recommendations We do not recommend the use of site soils with high fines content (greater than 30 percent) as structural fill as they may be or may become loose, unstable, and difficult to work with, especially during wet season grading. The native soils with 23 to 30 percent fines are moisture sensitive but may be suitable for use as structural fill if the moisture content can be controlled, i.e., during the dry summer months. 21-1-22082-001-k1.aoexMp1k 21-1-22082-001 6 Packet Pg. 245 6.1.a SHANNON MMILSON, INC. 6.7 Earthwork and Use of On -site Soils Fill placed beneath structures such as floor slabs, pavements, sidewalks, or backfill against footings should be structural fill. Structural fill should be placed and compacted upon native soil surfaces observed during construction by a geotechnical engineer or the engineer's representative. The fill soils encountered on -site generally contain sufficient fines to make them moisture -sensitive. In our opinion, on -site soils may be difficult to place and compact to adequate relative compaction levels, particularly during wet weather or in wet conditions. The on -site glacial till soils may be used as structural fill material provided the following conditions are met: ■ The soil is free from organics, debris, or other deleterious material. ■ The water content of the on -site soil at the time of compaction is close to its optimum as determined by a Modified Proctor Test (ASTM International [ASTM], 2012). On -site soils used for fills and backfills that become wet and unstable after placement should be removed and replaced with suitable material. IN Stockpiled on -site soils are protected when rainfall is anticipated. If on -site soil becomes too difficult to compact or construction site space limitations prevent stockpiling, we reconunend using imported, granular, structural backfill. Imported, structural backfill should meet the gradation requirements of Section 9-03.14(1), Gravel Borrow, of the 2014 Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specifications (WSDOT, 2014). If fill is to be placed during periods of wet weather or under wet conditions, it should have the added requirement that the percentage of fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve based on wet -sieving the minus 3/a-inch fraction) be limited to 5 percent. All fines should be non -plastic. Structural fill should be placed in horizontal, uniform lifts and compacted to a dense and unyielding condition, and to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557) (ASTM, 2012). Subgrades to receive structural fill should be dense and unyielding and should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer prior to the placement of fiIL In general, the thickness of soil layers before compaction should not exceed 10 inches for heavy equipment compactors or 6 inches for hand -operated mechanical compactors. The most appropriate lift thickness should be determined in the field using the Contractor's selected equipment and fill, and verified with in situ soil density testing (nuclear gauge methods). All compacted surfaces should be sloped to drain to prevent ponding. Structural fill operations should be observed and evaluated by an experienced geotechnical engineer or technician. 21-1-22082-001-R I .doW"-pllk 21- l-22082-001 7 Packet Pg. 246 6.1.a SHANNON &WILSON, INC. 7.0 ADDITIONAL STUDIES We recommend additional explorations and design studies be performed for any proposed structure within the project area. Additional test pits and/or deep soil borings at or very near the proposed structure locations may be appropriate. The number and type of explorations will depend on the type of structure, location within the site, and proximity to existing explorations, as well as other factors. We recommend that at least one groundwater well be installed within the vicinity of a potential infiltration facility to determine the depth of water, to characterize the seasonal groundwater fluctuations and determine the contact depth between the glacial till and advanced outwash material. Samples obtained from the advanced outwash material would require grain size analyses to aid in determination of the infiltration rate. In addition, we recommend installing a dry test well within the advanced outwash material and perform in situ infiltration testing (e.g., falling head test and constant head test) to fin•ther evaluate the infiltration potential. 8.0 LIMITATIONS 'This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the Edmonds School District No. 15 for specific application to the design of the Madrona K-8 School project at this site as it relates to the geotech nical aspects discussed in this report. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors and/or the Contractor for factual information only. Our judgments, conclusions, and interpretations presented in the report should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions and should not be relied upon by prospective contractors. Construction period observation by our firm is necessary to confirm preliminary recommendations and interpretations made in this report. The preliminary analyses, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechuucal engineering principles and practice in this area at this time. No other warranty, either express or implied, is made. The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed during our site visits and explorations, and further assume that the explorations are representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site; i.e., the subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by the explorations. If subsurface conditions different from those described in this report are observed or appear to be present during construction, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations, where necessary. 21-1-22082.001-RI.doeW pft 8 21-1-22082-001 Packet Pg. 247 6.1.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. If there is a substantial lapse of time between the submission of this report and the start of work at the site, or if conditions have changed because of natural causes or construction operations at or aqiacent to the site, we recommend that this report be reviewed to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations, considering the changed conditions and time lapse. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered and cannot be fiilly determined by merely taking soil samples or completing test pits. Such unexpected conditions frequently require that additional expenditures be made to attain a properly constructed project. Therefore, some contingency fund 1s recommended to accommodate such potential extra costs. S&W has prepared the enclosed Appendix D, "Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Report," to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitations of our reports. SHANNON & WILSON, INC. 14 1 �-- 1 4 loe- � I -/x � Kevin Wood Geotechnical Staff -VIN W, h 30308 4 Martin W. Page, P.E., L.E.G. Vice President Geotechnical Engineer, LEED AP, DBIA KJW:MWP/kjw 21-1-22082-001-it l.docx4%p11k 9 21-1-22082-001 Packet Pg. 248 6.1.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. 9.0 REFERENCES ASTM International (ASTM), 2012, Standard test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics of soil using modified effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3)), D1557-12: West Conshohocken, Pa., ASTM International, Annual book of standards, v. 04.08, soil and cock (1): D420 - D5876, 14 p., available: www.astm.oM. CDM Smith Inc. (CDM), 2006, Geotechnical data report, Brightwater conveyance system, west contract, Report prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Wastewater Treatment Division, by CDM, Bellevue, Washington, July. International Code Council, Inc., 2015, International building code: Country Club Hills, Ill., International Code Council, Inc., 690 p. Kramer, S.L., 1996, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering: Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall, 653 p. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (S&W), 2007, Infiltration Study Report, Old Woodway Elementary School Drainage Project, Edmonds, Washington: Report prepared by S&W, Seattle, Washington, 21-1-20194-003, for City of Edmonds, Edmonds, Washington, February. Troost, K.G., and Booth, D.B., 2008, Geology of Seattle and the Seattle area, Washington, in Baum, R.L., Godt, J.W. and Highland, L.M., eds., Landslides and Engineering Geology of the Seattle, Washington, Area: Geologic Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geology XX, p. 1-35. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 2014, Standard specifications for road, bridge, and municipal construction, M41-10: Olympia, Wash., Washington State Department of Transportation. z 1-1-22082-001-x I.aocagpdk 21-1-22082-001 10 Packet Pg. 249 Ao tilt ::. "# •.ati 1i 2361h 5t IVW.. {� + 238th St NW ;: •' I I' ' r•. � 1 226th 5t Nvv �1. . 41 ,. Lake _�... Ballinger ' � .. rs J ^rr win � � ,- {'� '+ � -._`• -_ -� f � �1 � T. .ss 'fig e eadit _ - - N B-10 No B-15 an B-9 am B-8 am 0 50 100 Approximate Scale in Feet gg $ LEGEND B-6 so Test Pit Designation and 0 B-1 Approximate Location h 5 o NOTE Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by _ Google Earth Pro, reproduced by permission " am granted by Google Earth — Mapping Service. Geotechnical Report B-13 am New Madrona K-8 Project ryEdmonds, Washington SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN E July 2015 21-1-22082-001 ' • sle earth — SHANNON 8 WILSON, INc. FIG. 2 Geole n-1 and Environmental Co,:'Na Ls Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) 6.1.a APPENDIX A TEST PIT LOGS SHANNON WILSON, INC. r- r a 21-1-22082-001 Packet Pg. 252 6.1.a APPENDIX A TEST PIT LOGS TABLE OF CONTENTS FIGURES A-1 Soil Description and Log Key (3 sheets) A-2 Log of Test Pit TP-1 A-3 Log of Test Pit TP-2 A-4 Log of Test Pit TP-3 A-5 Log of Test Pit TP-4 A-6 Log of Test Pit TP-5 A-7 Log of Test Pit TP-6 A-8 Log of Test Pit TP-7 A-9 Log of Test Pit TP-8 A-10 Log of Test Pit TP-9 A-11 Log of Test Pit TP-10 A-12 Log of Test Pit TP-11 A-13 Log of Test Pit TP-12 A-14 Log of Test Pit TP-13 A-15 Log of Test Pit TP-14 A-16 Log of Test Pit TP-15 A-17 Log of Test Pit TP-16 21-1-22082-001 -RI -AA.d o nJ%%pA k A-i SHANNON WILSON, INC. 21-1-22082-001 Packet Pg. 253 6.1.a Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (S&Vk), uses a soil identification system modified from the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Elements of the USCS and other definitions are provided on this and the following pages. Soil descriptions are based on visual -manual procedures (ASTM D2488) and laboratory testing procedures (ASTM D2487), if performed. S&W INORGANIC SOIL CONSTITUENT DEFINITIONS s CONSTITUENT FINE-GRAINED SOILS (60% or more fines)' COARSE -GRAINED SOILS less than 60%fines _ Slit, Lean Clay, Major Elastic Silt, or Sand or Gravel" Fat C/a ' Modifying (Secondary) 30% or more More than 12% Precedes major coarse -grained: fine-grained: c nsli u Sandy or Gravelly' Silty or Clayey3 15% to 30% 5% to 12 0 coarse -grained: fine-grained: with Sand or With Gravel' with Silt or wlth Clad'_ FollowsMainor major _ 30% or more total _ constituent coarse -grained and 15% or more of a lesser coarse- second coarse - grained constituent grained constituent: is 15% or more: with Sand or with Sand or with Gravel" with Gravel" 'All percentages are by weight of total specimen passing a 3-Inch slave. 'The order of terms Is: Modifying Majorsvrlh Minor. 'Detarmined based on bahaWor. 4Delermined based on which constituent comprises a larger percentage. (Whichever is the lesser constituent. MOISTURE CONTENT TERMS Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Moist Damp but no visible water Wet Visible free water, from below water table STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) SPECIFICATIONS Hammer: 140 pounds with a 30-inch free fall. Rope on 6- to 10-inch-diam. cathead 2-1/4 rope turns, > 100 rpm NOTE: If automatic hammers are used, blow counts shown on boring logs should be adjusted to account for efficiency of hammer. Sampler: 10 to 30 inches long Shoe I.D. = 1.375 inches Barrel I.D. = 1.5 inches Barrel O.D. = 2 inches N-Value: Sum blow counts for second and third 6-inch increments. Refusal: 50 blows for 6 inches or less; 10 blows for 0 inches. NOTE: Penetration resistances (N-values) shown on boring logs are as recorded in the field and have not been corrected for hammer efficiency, overburden, or other factors. PARTICLE SIZE DEFINITIONS DESCRIPTION SIEVE NUMBER AND/OR APPROXIMATE SIZE FINES <#200 (0.075 mm = 0.003 in.) SAND Fine 4200 to #40 (0.075 to 0.4 mm; 0.003 to 0.02 in.) Medium #40 to #10 (0.4 to 2 mm; 0.02 to 0.08 in.) Coarse #10 to #4 (2 to 4.75 mm; 0.08 to 0.187 in.) GRAVEL Fine #4 to 3/4 in. (4.75 to 19 mm; 0.187 to 0.75 in.) Coarse 3/4 to 3 in. (19 to 76 mm) COBBLES 3 to 12 in. (76 to 305 mm) > 12 in. (305 mm) BOULDERS RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS N, SPT, RELATIVE N, SPT, RELATIVE BLOWS/FT. DENSITY BLOWS/FT. CONSISTENCY < 2 Very soft < 4 Very loose 4-10 Loose 2-4 Soft 10-30 Medium dense 4-8 Medium stiff 30-50 Dense 8 - 15 Stiff > 50 Very dense 15 - 30 Very stiff > 30 Hard WELL AND BACKFILL SYMBOLS bmBentonite Cement Grout r Surface Cement Seal VABentonite Grout Asphalt or Cap Bentonite Chips /,\\ q Slough Silica Sand 1111 Inclinometer or Non -perforated Casing Perforated or Screened Casing rn Fu Vibrating Wire Piezometer PERCENTAGES TERMS'' 2 Trace < 5% Few 5 to 10% Little 15 to 25% Some 30 to 45% Mostly 50 to 100% 'Gravel, sand, and fines estimated by mass. Other constituents, such as organics, cobbles, and boulders, estimated by volume. 2Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Idenlificallon of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org. Packet Pg. 254 6.1.a UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NSCS) (Modified Frain USACE Tech Memo 3-357, ASTM D2487, and ASTM D2488) MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUPIGRAPHIC TYPICAL IDENTIFICATIONS SYMBOL GW . `■ 1 Well -Graded Gravel; Well -Graded Gravel with Sand Gravel GP o o° Poorly Graded Gravel; Poorly Graded Gravels (less tasn 5% (more than 50% p Gravel with Sand of coarse fraction retained on No, 4 sieve) Silly or Clayey GM ' 1 Sill Gravel; Sill Gravel with Sand y y Gravel GC Clayey Gravel; Clayey Gravel with COARSE- (moreues) f2/� GRAINED Sand SOILS SW •:•'•` Well -Graded Sand; Well -Graded Sand (more than 50% relainedon No. 200 sieve) Sand with Gravel (less titan 5% finest' SP Poorly Graded Sand; Poorly Graded Sands Sand with Gravel (50% or more of Coarse "clion passesSthe No.eVe)No. 4 Silly or SM41 Silly Sand; Silly Sand with Gravel Clayey Sand (nlom than M% fines) SC Clayey Sand; Clayey Sand with Gravel MIL Silt; Slit with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly 5111 Inorganic Silts and Clays CL Lean Clay; Lean Clay with Sand or (liquid limif less Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Lean Clay than 50) Organic OL = Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or Clay with Sand o► Gravel; Sandy or FINE-GRAINED SOILS — — — Gravelly Organic Slit or Clay (50% or more MH Elastic, Sill; Elastic Sill wlth Sand or passes the No. 200 sieve) Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Elastic Slit Inorganic CH Fat Clay; Fat Clayvrith Sand or Gravel; Silts and Clays (liquid 50 or Sandy or Gravelly Fat Clay wr nwre) OH Organic Sill or Clay; Organic Sill or Clay Sand Gravel; Sandy or Organic wllh or Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay ORGANIC Primarily organic matter, dark in PT Peal or other highly organic soils (see SOILS color, and organic odor ASTM D4427) NOTE: No. 4 size = 4.75 mm = 0.187 in.; No. 200 size = 0.075 mm = 0.003 in. NOTES a sy_m0ls Isymbols separated by a hyohem i.e. SRSM. Sand with Sifl) are used for soft with beiween_5 and 12% tines or when the li Uid limit and ptastigity ind x values plot in the CL-ML area of the plasticity charL Graphics shown on the logs for these soil types are a cQmIin ion of the two graphic symbol& (e.g., SP and SM . 2. BordarlIna s mbols esymbols separated PX9 slash le. CUM Lean Clay to Sill' SP-SM M and with Slit to WIN Sand Indicate that the soil properilos are, lot to the defining be nda b tween two groups. M Cl) G7 r N c d E t rc t 3 O t2 L W- W- M N m C Q ti N O 0 to 0 N Z J d C N E L V M Q Packet Pg. 255 6.1.a Poorly Graded Narrow range of grain sizes present or, within the range or grain sizes present, one or more sizes are missing (Gap Graded). Meets criteria In ASTM D2487, If tested. Well -Graded Full range and even dislribulion of grain sizes present. Meets criteria In ASTM D2487, if tested. CEMENTATION TERMS' Weak Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight finger pressure. Moderate Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger pressure. Strong Will not crumble or break with finger pres5.ure. DESCRIPTION APPROX. PLASITICITY VISUAL -MANUAL CRITERIA INDEX RANGE Nonplastic A 1184n. thread cannot be rolled <4 at any water content. Low A thread can barely be rolled and 4 to 10 a lump cannot be formed when drier than the plastic limit. Medium A thread is easy to roll and not 10 to 20 much time is required to reach the plastic limit_ The thread cannot be rerolled after reaching the plastic limlt. A lump crumbles when drier than the plastic limit. High It takes considerable time rollin.9 > 20 and kneading to reach the plastic limit. A thread can be rerolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. A lump can be formed without crumbling when drier than the plastic limit. Mottled Irregular patches of different colors. Bioturbated Soil disturbance or mixing by plants or animals. Diamict Nonsorted sediment; sand and gravel in silt andlor clay matrix.. Cuttings Material brought to surface by drilling. Slough Material that caved from sides of borehole. Sheared Disturbed texture, mix of strengths. Angular Sharp edges and unpolished planar surfaces. Subangular Similar to angular, but with rounded edges. Subrounded Nearly planar sides with well-rounded edges. Rounded Smoothly curved sides with no edges. Flat Width/thickness ratio > 3. Elongated Length/width ratio > 3. ATD At Time of Drilling Diam. Diameter Elev. Elevation ft. Feet FeO Iron Oxide gal. Gallons Horiz. Horizontal HSA Hollow Stem Auger I.D. Inside Diameter in. Inches lbs. Pounds MgO Magnesium Oxide mm Millimeter MnO Manganese Oxide NA Not Applicable or Not Available NP Nonplastic O.D. Outside Diameter OW Observation Well pcf Pounds per Cubic Foot PID Photo -Ionization Detector PMT Pressuremeter Test ppm Parts per Million psi Pounds per Square Inch PVC Polyvinyl Chloride rpm Rotations per Minute SPT Standard Penetration Test USCS Unified Soil Classification System % Unconfined Compressive Strength VWP Vibrating Wire Piezometer Vert Vertical WOH Weight of Hammer WOR Weight of Rods Wt. Weight Interbedded Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers at least 1/4-inch thick; singular: bed. Laminated Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers less than 1/4-inch thick; singular: lamination. Fissured Breaks along definite planes or fractures with little resistance. Slickensided Fracture planes appear polished or glossy; sometimes striated. Blocky Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular lumps that resist further breakdown. Lensed Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, such as small lenses of sand scattered through a mass of clay. Homogeneous Same color and appearance throughout. 'Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org. 'Adapted, wilh permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Sails (Visual -Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International. 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM Internal iona1. %%m.astm.org. Geotechnical Report New Madrona K-8 Project Edmonds, Washington SOIL DESCRIPTION AND LOG KEY August 2015 21-1-22082-001 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Gool%W,al and Environmental Consultants Packet Pg. 256 �n SHANNON I£ WILSON, INC. JOB NO: 21-1-22082-001 DATE: 6-24-2015 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan GaoMchr ml an0 EnYVonmanlal Cort•. tM-, LOG OF TEST PIT TP-1 PROJECT: Madrona Elementary School, Edmonds, Washington Sketch of North Pit Side Surface Elevation: 454 Ft. SOIL DESCRIPTION 3 2 2 � E E j a Horizontal Distance in Feet 10 o Ucc 2 4 6 8 10 12 Loose, brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP); dry to moist; abundant plant roots. 7,0 S-0 0 Topsoil Z m 2 rn 2 Very dense, gray brown, Silty O i Sand with Gravel (SM); moist. c Till Z 4 6 8 10 12 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) 0 X CD rt (Q N U1 00 in SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Goolochnk.W and Em/ftnr- dW C""Imrd. JOB NO: 21-1-22082-001 DATE: 6-24-2015 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan LOG OF TEST PIT TP-2 PROJECT: Madrona Elementary School, Edmonds, Washington 1 Sketch of East Pit Side Surface Elevation: 451 Ft. ii SOIL DESCRIPTION o o a E Horizontal Distance in Feet 0 C o 0 rn 0 10 2 4 6 8 10 12 LJ Loose, brown to gray brown. - Poorly Graded Sand w&; Gravel (SP); dry to moist: abundant tree �� and plant roots. ``_J Topsoil 5.3 S-0 2 Medium dense to dense, brown, .Q G Poorly Graded Sand with Sift and 42 Gravel (SP-SM); dry to moist. z �} Fill Very dense, gray brown. Silty 4 Sand with Gravel (SM), moist. Till 6 8 10 6] n W 12 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) SW SHANNON & WILS[]N, INC. C-00MCRMWE and EnV6omn"W " jz5� LOG OF TEST PIT TP-3 SOIL DESCRIPTION `il. Loose, brown to gray brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP); dry to moist; abundant tree and plant roots. Topsoil 2 Medium dense to dense, brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel (SP-SM); dry to moist. Fill Very dense, gray brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist. Till NOTE 1. Boulder encountered at 1.5 feet below ground surface. JOB NO: 21-1-22082-001 DATE: 6-24-2015 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan PROJECT: Madrona Elementary School, Edmonds, Washington U- Sketch of West Pit Side Surface Elevation: 445 Ft. 0 3: o 5 Horizontal Distance in Feet o v ❑ 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 i m Z m 2 U) O m c 0 z 4 9.7 S-0 N 8 10 12 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) MI SHANNON S WILSON, INC. Gmio&nIWl and Enr[eonm*rta[ CansuRants LOG OF TEST PIT TP-4 SOIL DESCRIPTION 1 ` Loose, brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP); dry to moist; abundant tree and plant roots. Topsoil O2 Dense, light brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); dry to moist. Fill 3 Very dense, dark brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist. Till M G) a JOB NO:21-1-22082-001 DATE: 6-24-2015 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan PROJECT: Madrona Elementary School, Edmonds, Washington U- Sketch of East Pit Side Surface Elevation: 452 Ft. 2 3: o E � Horizontal Distance in Feet O o U Cn 0 10 2 4 6 8 10_ 12 C' m Z m 2 N .a O a� 0 4.0 S-0 z 4 6 { 8 10 12 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) �11 SHANNON &. WILSON, INC. Gookmf nlcm ono rrv3-Olm eMV Consuhanss LOG OF TEST PIT TP-5 c m� m SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 0 CO m a � � ! .0 M o U Cn '. Loose, brown, Poorly Graded r Sand with Gravel (SP); dry to moist; abundant plant roots. Topsoil Z 5.2 S-0 Very dense, gray brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist. Till JOB NO: 21-1-22082-001 DATE: 6-24-2015 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan PROJECT: Madrona Elementary School, Edmonds, Washington r Sketch of North Pit Side Surface Elevation: 454 Ft, Q Horizontal Distance in Feet 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 10 12 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) SoSHANNON & 1NILSON, INC. GcoWcNca nW Enwtmnrwn W ccnsuxxnt LOG OF TEST PIT TP-6 SOIL DESCRIPTION Loose, brown to gray brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP); dry to moist; abundant tree and plant roots. Topsoil 2 : Medium dense to dense, light brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel (SP-SM); dry to moist Fill ;s Very dense, dark brown to brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist. Till JOB NO: 21-1-22082-001 DATE: 6-24-2015 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan PROJECT: Madrona Elementary School, Edmonds, Washington m u- ` Sketch of West Pit Side Surface Elevation: 450 Ft. O R d d Horizontal Distance in Feet o U U o 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 m Z aD y M O 7.7 m 0 zc S-0 10' 12 1 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) f SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Go6icchnk;W and Er**nrr vza3 Cam= tanm LOG OF TEST PIT TP-7 SOIL DESCRIPTIONQ o O JOB NO: 21-1-22082-001 DATE: 6-24-2015 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan PROJECT: Madrona Elementary School, Edmonds, Washington U- Sketch of West Pit Side Surface Elevation: 445 Ft. � E n Horizontal Distance in Feet U cn cc 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 01 ` Loose, gray brown, Poorly Graded 4 Sand (SP); trace gravel; dry to 2 moist; abundant tree and plant roots. Topsoil m 2 � � I 2, Medium dense to dense, brown, O Poorly Graded Sand with Silt o 7 7 S-0 and Gravel (SP-SM); trace 0 cobbles; moist. Fill 4 �3 , Very dense, brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); trace cobbles; moist. Till 6 8 NOTE ? . Boulder encountered at 2 10 feet below the ground i m surface. I a av 12 i Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) *00113 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Gae'. diniC31 and EnviWn LW ConsuftMIS LOG OF TEST PIT TP-8 SOIL DESCRIPTION f 1 Loose, brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP); dry to moist; abundant tree and plant roots. Topsoil Very dense, gray brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist. Till 5.2 1 S-0 JOB NO: 21-1-22082-001 DATE: 6-24-2015 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan PROJECT: Madrona Elementary School, Edmonds, Washington U- Sketch of East Pit Side Surface Elevation: 452 Ft. Q Horizontal Distance in Feet m 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 10 12 1 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) fo SHANNON & WILSON, INC. JOB NO: 21-1-22082-001 DATE: 6-24-2015 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan C.00!o6hnlcsl and Env"r-mo tal CCn&Atams LOG OF TEST PIT TP-9 PROJECT: Madrona Elementary School, Edmonds, Washington v -- (D ii Sketch of North Pit Side Surface Elevation: 454 Ft. SOIL DESCRIPTION m 0 � o CL E S Horizontal Distance in Feet o U U 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 ,L1. Loose, brown to gray brown, ` Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel 5.5 S-0 (SP); dry to moist; abundant plant roots. (D Topsoil a) 2 Very dense, gray brown, Silty O Sand with Gravel (SM); moist. c Till z 4 6 8 10 -n D j o 12 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) ' 1 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. CC*tCC CftW and EnVVVbnentW CWSWu ants LOG OF TEST PIT TP-10 SOIL DESCRIPTION 1 ' Loose, brown to gray brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP); dry to moist; abundant tree and plant roots. Topsoil tit' Medium dense to dense, brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel (SP-SM); dry to moist. Fill 3 Very dense, gray brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); abundant cobbles; moist. Till JOB NO: 21-1-22082-001 DATE: 6-24-2015 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan PROJECT: Madrona Elementary School, Edmonds, Washington aZ 1 m U- Sketch of North Pit Side Surface Elevation: 446 Ft. 2 �c E a I, ci1 (1) 1 0 0 Z 0 10.8 O 4 C� 8 12 Horizontal Distance in Feet 2 4 6 8 10 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) SM SHANNON & WILSON, INC. CAOsovw[pl and EnvirovrientW Const7Ranb LOG OF TEST PIT TP-11 SOIL DESCRIPTION `1 Loose, brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP); dry to moist; abundant tree and plant roots. Topsoil 2 Very dense, gray brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist. Till 'COD 5.0 it 0 y O JOB NO: 21-1-22082-001 DATE: 6-24-2015 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan PROJECT: Madrona Elementary School, Edmonds, Washington m Sketch of East Pit Side Surface Elevation: 452 Ft. CL r Horizontal Distance in Feet ca U 0 10 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 S-0 8 10 12 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) v 0 X m rt (Q N 00 SM SHANNON & WILSON, INC. GDOWdWoew 3M Em immo"tw Conswwflz LOG OF TEST PIT TP-12 SOIL DESCRIPTION Loose, brown to gray brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP); dry to moist; abundant tree and plant roots. Topsoil 2 ; Medium dense to dense, brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel (SP-SM); dry to moist. Fill Very dense, gray brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist. Till m m m C. 0 > E I -0 C$) JOB NO: 21-1-22082-001 DATE: 6-24-2015 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan PROJECT: Madrona Elementary School, Edmonds, Washington Sketch of West Pit Side Surface Elevation: 446 Ft. Horizontal Distance in Feet 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 o A - -- I Z Q 2 O 6.1 S-0 m c Z 101 12 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) SHANNON & WI1 SON, INC. Gca'cvrnical and ErorirOrirno =d Cor. Imrts JOB NO: 21-1-22082-001 DATE: 6-24-2015 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan LOG OF TEST PIT TP-13 PROJECT: Madrona Elementary School, Edmonds, Washington m m Sketch of North Pit Side Surface Elevation: 454 Ft. SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 3: 15 E Horizontal Distance in Feet o c U ca U o 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 r' 3 Loose, brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP); dry to moist; abundant plant roots. Topsoil Q �D 46 Very dense, gray brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist. Till m m y O m c 0 z 5.4 I S-0 10 12 0 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) =�jD SHANNON & WILSON, INC. OmotDdmn cal aM F-nAmnmm+W ConWtanLS LOG OF TEST PIT TP-14 SOIL DESCRIPTION Loose, gray brown, Poorly Gra, Sand (SP): trace gravel: dry to moist: abundant plant roots. Topsoil Medium dense to dense, brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel (SP); trace cobbles: moist Fill �3 Very dense, dark brown, Silty Sand with Gravel {SM}: trace cobbles; dry to moist. Till JOB NO: 21-1-22082-001 DATE: 6-24-2015 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan PROJECT: Madrona Elementary School, Edmonds, Washington Lo Sketch of _ North Pit Side i Surface Elevation: 448 Ft. Ca c C c a) cm Q O m� c E Horizontal Distance in Feet C7� o U cn 2 4 6 8 10 12 fl 16.8 S-0 I 2 O 4+ 12 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) SHANNON & WILS INC. Goc:cchnicd] and Envlronmen:aF :.ona�.]'�n� LOG OF TEST PIT TP-15 JOB NO: 21-1-22082-001 DATE: 6-24-2015 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan PROJECT: Madrona Elementary School, Edmonds, Washington a a; �- Sketch of North Pit Side Surface Elevation: 454 Ft. SOIL DESCRIPTION o -a� 2 o cEo Horizontal Distance in Feet v U) 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 '1 Loose, brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP); dry to 6.5 S-0 moist; abundant plant roots. Topsoil CD ;2 Very dense, gray brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist. Till 4 7 8 10 12 2 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) v 0 X m rt N V N SHANNON & WILSON, INC. JOB NO: 21-1-22082-001 DATE: 6-24-2015 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan C ; ,: - :Nc4 �n6 Ervhpsmmial C6nsv]=L� LOG OF TEST PIT TP-16 PROJECT: Madrona Elementary School, Edmonds, Washington Sketch of North Pit Side Surface Elevation: 448 Ft. SOIL DESCRIPTION o 6 2 2 r- E a Horizontal Distance in Feet o CC m UI CD 10 2 4 6 8 10 12 I 0 Loose, brown to gray brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP); dry to moist; abundant tree and plant roots. Topsoil OMedium dense to dense. brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); dry to moist. Fill 3 • Very dense, gray brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); abundant cobbles; moist. Till 4 L 10 12; Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) 6.1.a APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS SI ANNON MML.SON, INC. r- r a 21-1-22082-001 Packet Pg. 273 6.1.a APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE OF CONTENTS FIGURE B-1 Grain Size Distributions 21-1-22082-001-RI-AD.dooxl%%V - SHANNON 6WILSOR INC. 21-1-22082-001 Packet Pg. 274 a n SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SCM OF MESH OPENING IN? INCHES I NO, OF MESH DPENING$ PER INpi, U.S. STANDARD GRAIN SIZE W WLLIMIL ERS H 2 C9 w m CC W Z LL F Z W U of W a 0 LEGEND 10 USCS: Unified Soil Classification System 20 COBBLE %- Percentage of cobbles in lest specimen; based on pro -removal total dry mass for normalized tests 30 m MAT WC %• Natural water content X 0 Cu: Coefficient of uniformity m 40 Z Cc: Coefficient of curvature 0 ASTM DES: ASTM International Dtest standard designation 50 in m x DO 60 { M m 5 2 70 --1 so 90 100 O O O O O O O O S O O r O GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM I FlNE FINES: SILT OR CLAY GRAVEL SAND SORNGAND SAWLE NO. DEPTH (bell GROUP Usm GROUP NAME COBBLE % GRAVEL % SAND % FNES i % 0 % Z- �% NAT wC% TEST flY REVEYV flY ASTM DES Geotechnical Report SYLSOL New Madrona K-8 Project * TP-05 1.7 SM Silty Sand with Gravel 1B 52 30 52 AKv JFL D422 ■ TP-06 2.5 SM Silty Sand with Gravel 26 47 26 7.7 AKV JFL D422 Edmonds, Washington TP-16 1.5 SM Sllty Sand with Gravel 23 53 23 52 AKV JFL D422 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION { August 2015 21-1-22082-001 SHANNON & MLSON, INC. I FIG. B-1 Gio1iehikW iid Ein'ifOn—W OOee1� sheet 1 of 1 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) 6.1.a APPENDIX C SUPPLEMENTARY SOIL DATA SHANNON WILSON, INC. r- r a 21-1-22082-001 Packet Pg. 276 6.1.a APPENDIX C SUPPLEMENTARY SOIL DATA TABLE OF CONTENTS FIGURES C-1 Brightwater Boring E-105 (Sheets 1 of 16) C-2 Brightwater Boring E-106 (Sheets 1 and 2 of 17) C-3 Brightwater Boring E-206 (Sheets 1 and 2 of 15) 21-1-22082.001-R I-AC.docx/%%V& C-i SHANNON &WILSON, INC. 21-1-22082-001 Packet Pg. 277 6.1.a n Q Project: King County WTD / Brightwater Conveyance System Log of Boring E-106 Project Location: King & Snohomish Counties, Washington Contract Number: E23007E Sheet 1 of 17 Dates) q/11/03 •4122103 Geolechnical Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Logged RW Checked VJP 02.03.04 Drilled Consultant _ By By Drilling Method/Rig TypeWlrellne/ T3 Drilling Cascade Drilling, Inc. Total Depth 566.0 feet _ Contractor of Borehole Slzen a PQ (7"O.D.) Hammer Weight/Drop (lbs/in.) 300# 130" Ground Surface 581.9 feet / Metro �YP Elevation/Datum _ Location 20367 Greenwood Ave Coordinates N 287281 E 1266085 Elevation Source Survey SAMPLES `O z rn J MATERIAL DESCRIPTION v y .� E REMARKS AND v m w es E ; $ n U 0 v � a, �, OTHER TESTS W w O w � o^ 4V ar rcS 0-U) d O H Z m? of U n- a 0 to 6 fl bgs excavated with vnruum truck, not sampled -580 / / Drive 6•inch•diameler 6- casing to 16 feel bgs , , $oil description inferredd GW- Dense, yellow -brown, moist, slightly silty, sandy -676 + GM GRAVEL (GWGM), trace cobbles. wall graded. from drill action and cullings fine to coarse subangular gravel (Qvim) / 10 -670 • Driller reports hard drilling in cobbles and boulders --565 ■ 1 48 - 5012" (1004) U • j / / No recovery stone in sampling shoe L Drillers use tri cone bit for 20_ ` _ _ drillingg Through formation from • Pi to 37 feel bgs 660 J► • lo • Groundwater Observation Data: Remarks: Negative Groundwater Data Indicates measurements above Ground Surface Recovery values > 100 indicate sample expansion during sampling. OW (FT BGS); 390.7 (Low) 380.5 (High) 141111111� 0 W R Packet Pg. 278 6.1.a Project: King County WTD / Brightwater Conveyance System Log of Boring E-106 Project Location: King & Snohomish Counties, Washington Sheet 2 of 17 Contract Number: E23007E c 0 m ar w j _ FT Z SAMPLES o rn J r ? o a o i g - 50l5" 2 (100i) 9 5�ti 56/6" ■i 3 (100+) 100 CCU �5u MATERIAL DESCRIPTION E E to 0. m N U)a ai / r • r / / / / GW --- Very dense, brown, moist, sandy GRAVEL / / / ' r r ' (GNl}, well -graded, fine to coarse subangular gravel (Qva) SW_ Very dense, brown. molal, slightly silty, gravelly — / ' / ' SM SAND (SW-SM), well -graded, fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse subangular gravel (Qva) - _. / r / / / / / I01 Jq 4? v?� 9 REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS J as drilling Drilling smoother description Infer drill action and Packet Pg. 279 6.1.a Project: King County WTD I Brightwater Conveyance System Log of Boring E-206 Project Location: King & Snohomish Counties, Washington Contract Number: E23007E Sheet 1 of 15 Dales) 4128103 - 616/03 Drilled Consultant Cam Dresser & McKee Inc. Logged JAW Consultant P By Checked VJP 02-03-04 B Drilling Method/Rig TypeWirelinel T3 Drilling Cascade Drilling, Inc. Contractor Total Depth 493.0 foot of Borehole Szerr a 7" /PQ casing Size,?, Hammer Weight/Drop (lbsfin.) 300# l 30" Coordinates N 287136 E 1267334 Ground Surface 566.1 feet I Metro Elevation/Datum Location 20361 North Park Ave N Elevation Source Survey SAMPLES `O z MATERIAL DESCRIPTION E REMARKS AND w m WQ? �J a � �y' R� o coN m ►- OTHER TESTS a¢ i- Z 3^ m? W U rn 5 �r� a. o) m -1 Ev e. a 0.33 to 6 feel excavated -565 wilh vacuum truck, not sari�p:erf 5 - -580 Brown, silly, sandy GRAVEL (GM) scattered Z GM ■ cobbles (Qvt) SO description inferred ■ from drill action and tunings 10 ■ - ■ 555 ■ ■ 16 , - --550 ■ 17 - 39 - is ;: ;; SM Verryy dense, brown, wet, silly, gravelly SAND 1 100+ ( ) 94 (SiN), fine to coarse sand, fine subrounded gravel (Qvt) t+: 20- Et: 645 F 1 ;1 r� Groundwater Observation Data: Remarks: Negative Groundwater Data Indicates measurements above Ground Surface Recovery values > 100 indicate sample expansion during sampling. OW (FT BGS): 330.6 (Low) 329.8 (High) VWP 1 (FT BGS): 260.9 (Low) 259.2 (High) Packet Pg. 280 6.1.a Project: King County WTI) / Brightwater Conveyance System Log of Boring E-206 Project Location: King & Snohomish Counties, Washington contract Number: E23007E Sheet 2 of 15 SAMPLES MATERIAL DESCRIPTION EE E REMARKS AND 2 w ' d OTHER TESTSN0i W w ? 120 a a. n a ■ :HZo o tY U' a -540 ` i -0•ri - 536 a 35 i%M - - Very hard drilling 530 ■ 2 21- 50/5.5' 10o GW Very dense, gray, wet, slightly silty, sandy of (100+) GRAVEL (GW), well -graded, fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, subangular to i., subrounded, cobbles (Qva) 40 •■.• 6 ►: 625 a5- - b ai 620 • • •+ 50 •*• a -515 `� ■ a: � ■•.• 55 :i. 510 ■ 3 5' /g5.5 52 * ` Grades (race silt � _ ice• a n�7RA 'VA0 r TM Packet Pg. 281 6.1.a > Project: King County WTD / Brightwater Conveyance System Log of Boring E-105 Project Location: King & Snohomish Counties, Washington Contract Number: E23007E Sheet 1 of 16 Dales) 313/03 - 4/3103 ConsultantGeotechnil Cam Dresser & McKee Inc, Bogged TCB Checked VJP 02-03.04 Drilled Consultant p By B Drilling MethodlRig TypeRoto-Sonic/ I Drilling CascadelBoart-Lon ear Total Depth 535.0 feet Contractor gy of Borehole Casing 8"l6'Y4"/Telescoping Casing I Hammer WeighUDrop (lbsfin.) N/A Ground Surface 649,0 foot /Metro Size;?, _ Elevation/Datum _ Location 6th Ave SW, Shoreline I Coordinates N 287349 E 1264077 Elevation Source Survey SAMPLES ro y CM 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION E'M v E REMARKS AND w 0fO a E o^ 8 m U N (U OTHER TESTS Va)o, h Z m? of (D 4.� � as 0- 0 to 6 feel excavated with vacuum truck, not samptad Spy 5— — 3 SM Medium dense, red brown. wet, slightly gravelly Si:rrl nZ with 9-inch casing SILTY SAND (SM), fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, subround to round, numerous organics, wood debris, homogeneous (af) —540 SM Medium dense, yellow red, gravelly silly SAND 10 (SM), fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel, 1 93 trace cobbles, subrounded to rounded, "•'' ` poorly -graded, matrix supported, scattered tv; SW oeniGg� Dense, brawn -olive gray, moist, gravelly SAND rz y M1 to}r ''s•f� (SW), well -graded, fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, subround to round, homogeneous 535 (Qva) :f•r Grades brown, slightly gravelly, trace sill •x: Yri.l{i: •�a,.v 2 97 t� —630 20 �y.t. Sp Dense, brown -light gray, moist, gravelly SAND (SP), poorly -graded, trace silt, trace fine sand, medium to coarse sand, fine gravel, subround to 525 round, homogeneous (Qva) Groundwater Observation Data: Remarks: Negative Groundwater Data indicates measurements above Ground Surface Recovery values > 100 indicate sample expansion during sampling. rrNw■ Packet Pg. 282 6.1.a Sl IANNON WILSON, INC. APPENDIX D IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 21-1-22082-001 Packet Pg. 283 6.1.a SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Attachment to and part of Report 21-1-22082-001 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Date: August G, 2015 To: Ms. Taine Wilton Edmonds School District No. 15 IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT CONSULTING SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND FOR SPECIFIC CLIENTS. Consultants prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for a civil engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, your consultant prepared your report expressly for you and expressly for the purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report for its intended purpose without first conferring with the consultant. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the consultant. THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS. A geotechnical/environmental report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a unique set of project -specific factors. Depending on the project, these may include: the general nature of the structure and property involved; its size and configuration; its historical use and practice; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; other improvements such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope -of -service limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly problems, ask the consultant to evaluate how any factors that change subsequent to the date of the report may affect the recommendations. Unless your consultant indicates otherwise, your report should not be used: (1) when the nature of the proposed project is changed (for example, if an office building will be erected 'instead of a parking garage, or if a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefi•igerated one, or chemicals are discovered on or near the site); (2) when the size, elevation, or configuration of the proposed project is altered; (3) when the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified; (4) when there is a change of ownership; or (5) for application to an adjacent site. Consultants catuot accept responsibility for problems that may occur if they are not consulted after factors which were considered in the development of the report have changed. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE. Subsurface conditions may be affected as a result of natural processes or human activity. Because a geotechnical/environmental report is based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be based on a report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Ask the consultant to advise if additional tests are desirable before construction starts; for example, groundwater conditions commonly vary seasonally. Conshuction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuitg adequacy of a geotecluical/environmental report. The consultant should be kept apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary. MOST RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS. Site exploration and testing identifies actual surface and subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The data were extrapolated by your consultant, who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations, you and your consultant call work together to help reduce their impacts. Retaining your consultant to observe subsurface construction operations can be particularly beneficial in this respect. Page I of 1/2015 Packet Pg. 284 6.1.a A REPORT'S CONCLUSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY. The conclusions contained in your consultant's report are preliminary because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork; therefore, you should retain your consultant to observe actual conditions and to provide conclusions. Only the consultant who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's recommendations based on those conclusions are valid and whether or not the contractor is abidung by applicable recoumiendations. The consultant who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of the report's recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction. THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION. Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop then- plans based on misinterpretation of a geotechnical/environmental repot. To help avoid these problems, the consultant should be retained to work with other project design professionals to explain relevant geotechmical, geological, hydrogeological, and environmental findings, and to review the adequacy of their plans and specifications relative to these issues. BORING LOGS AND/OR MONITORING WELL DATA SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT. Final boring logs developed by the consultant are based upon interpretation of field logs (assembled by site personnel), field test results, and laboratory and/or office evaluation of field samples and data. Only final boring logs and data are customarily included hi geotechnic,tUenvh•o►uuental repots. These final logs should not, under any circumstances, be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings, because draRers may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. To reduce the likelihood of boring log or monitoring well misinterpretation, contractor should be given ready access to the complete geotechnical engineering/environnnental report prepared or authorized for their use. If access is provided only to the report prepared for you, you should advise contractors of the report's limitations, assuming that a contractor was not one of the specific persons for whom the report was prepared, and that developing construction cost estimates was not one of the specific purposes for which it was prepared. While a contractor may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party, the contactor should discuss the report with your consultant and perform the additional or alternative work believed necessary to obtain the data specifically appropriate for construction cost estimating purposes. Some clients hold the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them fi•om attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors helps prevent costly construction problems and the adversarial attitudes that aggravate them to a disproportionate scale. READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY. Because geotechnical/environmental engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against consultants. To help prevent this problem, consultants have developed a number of clauses for use in their contacts, reports and other documents. These responsibility clauses are not exculpatory clauses designed to transfer the consultant's liabilities to other parties; rather, they are definitive clauses that identify where the consultant's responsibilities begin and end. Then' use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your report, and you are encouraged to read them closely. You• consultant will be pleased to give full and fi-ank answers to your questions. The preced'ung paragraphs are based on hifo niatim provided by tine ASFE/Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, Silver Spring, Maryland Page 2 of 2 1 /2015 Packet Pg. 285 6.1.a C r a Packet Pg. 286 6.1.a Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report New Madrona K-8 Project 9300 236th Street SW Edmonds, Washington OEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Excellence. Innovation. Service. Value. Since 1954. June 30, 2016 Submitted To Ms. Taine Wiltor ids School District #1 420 68`h Avenue Wes d, Washington 9803E By Shannon & Wilson, Inc 400 N 341h Street, Suite 10C Seattle, Washington 98102 Attachment 11 PLN20160027 Packet Pg. 287 6.1.a SHANNON &WILSON, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................... ........ l m 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................1 a 3.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS.................................................................................................2 d 3.1 Regional Geology and Hydrology 3.2 Local Geology and Hydrogeology .. ... ....................................................3 0 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TE 1N co 4.1 Drilling and Testing Program ............... .. ...................................4 0 L 4.2 Findings .................................................. ..........................6 4.2.1 Observed Geologic Can cans. ............................6 4.2.2 Groundwater Conditio ...%.............................................6 M CD 4.2.2.1 Ground a�e Le l and ni ring.......................................6 4.2.2.2 Aquif ro es ..........................................................7 ... . 4.2.3 Gr dr a er uali y.............:.................................................... 7 c 4.2.4 clot -scale In n i Tes ng...............................................................8 E z 5.0 STORMWATE QU IT IS 10 6.0 CONCLUSIONS A RE M EN A 5...............................................................10 3 6.1 Near -Surface In 'I ratio ecom endations............................................................10 6.2 Dry Well Recomm dations ° 6.2.1 General............................................................................................10 6.2.2 Preliminary We VDesign Recommendations.............................................12 6.2.3 Alternative Screened Well Preliminary Design Recommendations ..........14 m 6.3 Additional Recommendations..................................................................................14 a ti 7.0 LIMITATIONS....................................................................................................................15 0 0 8.0 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................17 2 ]-1-22082-003-R 1.docx/wp/1 kn 21-1-22082-003 I Packet Pg. 288 6.1.a TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) 1 2 4 5 6 7 A B C D SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. FIGURES Vicinity Map Site and Exploration Plan Surficial Geologic Map Deer Creek Water Supply Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Map Generalized Subsurface Profile A -A' Inflow Test Results at Pilot UIC Well IW-1 Conca - -- — -- — Subst Labor Hydn Impol 2 1-1-2 20 82-003 -R 1.docx/wp/1kn 11 I Report 21-1-22082-003 Packet Pg. 289 6.1.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. PRELIMINARY HYDROGEOLOGIC REPORT NEW MADRONA K-8 PROJECT 9300 236TH STREET SW EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Edmonds School District No. 15 (the Di (Shannon & Wilson) to conduct a preliminary hydro Project (the project), located in Edmonds, Washin the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 36, Township 27 9300 236th Street SW (Snohomish County tax parse construct the new Madrona K-8 School on the east p property. New stormwater management facilit'e the site. The purpose of this study was to eva uate tt underground injection control [UIC] wello)'f �e services, presented in our.proposaI to �e Disict d i ■ Observa66n well monitoring; ■ Pilot UIC well drilli g, 1r ■ Laboratory testing of s e ■ Meetings with the Districl ■ Preparation of this report. contracted Shannon & Wilson, Inc. ;t analysis for the new Madrona K-8 lure he project is located within 4 E, W tamette Meridian, at 3 Q4'6 The District plans to a e a roxi a ly 40-acre .QLI i for porox�ately 13 acres of M%.bill o ing dry wells (or , to control. Our scope of `rch 12016, included: and sampling; levity (slug) testing and groundwater level o , and inflow testing; i samples for grain size analysis; Our scope of services was authorized by the District's Purchase Order No. 2001500281, dated March 25, 2016. This report presents the results of our subsurface explorations, field and laboratory testing, and hydrogeologic analyses. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The approximately 40-acre property includes two steeply sloped wooded areas aligned north to south; one is a ravine located along the eastern property boundary, and the other is a forested incline located near the middle of the property (Figure 2). The existing Madrona Elementary School is located in the northeast corner of the property, and the former Woodway Elementary School is located in the opposite southwest corner of the property. We understand that the 21-1-22082-003-R 1. docx/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003 1 Packet Pg. 290 6.1.a SHANNON 6VVILSON, INC. planned new construction will occupy the east half of the property, where the existing grade elevation is currently approximately 445 to 455 feet. In additional to school buildings and parking lots, the property currently includes a running track, a baseball field, and soccer fields. The areas surrounding the property consist primarily of residential developments. A series of catch basin grates exist along the inside of the track. The project survey performed by Pace shows that these storm drains, along with storm drainage from the existing Madrona Elementary School, discharge to the top of the steep wooded slope in the middle of the property. The survey also identifies storm drain discharges to the to f the wooded ravine located on the eastern property boundary. As indicated in , t Figure Ke we l areas were identified in our recent Wetland and Stream Delineation Report S ann Wilso 016 . Wetlands A and C, on the wooded slope in the middle of the property, discharges, with seeps emerging between about elt our wetland report that these wetlands are sup rC drain discharges and groundwater. Wetland , wil property boundary, is located downgradi�rsi, the existing Madrona Element supported by surface f from and a seasonally higlgroun�kw, 3.1 Regional Geology The project site is located in the M y r�eia�. h+e ONS i the track storm drain We concluded in the u gradient storm ine located on the eastern with the eluded that Wetland B is likely drain inputs from the school, an elongated topographic and structural depression filled with a sequence of glacial and non -glacial sediments that unconformably overlie bedrock. The area has been glaciated seven or more times in the past 2.4 million years. During the last glacial advance, known as the Vashon, the ice was greater than 3,000 feet thick in the project area. The Vashon ice sheet receded from the area about 16,500 years ago, leaving topography characterized by low -rolling relief about 500 feet above sea level, with some deeply cut ravines and broad valleys. Since then, present-day geologic processes, such as erosion and deposition by streams, landslides, and human activities, have modified the ground surface. The primary geologic units of significance for the project in the area are summarized as follows: Vashon Ablation Till (Qvat). Ablation till soils were deposited by one of several depositional processes that take place along the margins of glacial ice and have variable characteristics. They are commonly composed of stratified or irregular bodies, including a heterogeneous mixture of loose to dense gravel, sand, silt, and 21-1-22082-003-R1.docx/wp/1kn 21-1-22082-003 2 Packet Pg. 291 6.1.a SHANNON &VVILSON, INC. clay. They may contain scattered cobbles and boulders. They are commonly reworked or modified through sediment slumping or stream action after initial deposition. Vashon Lodgement Till (Qvt). Vashon lodgement till soils were deposited at the base of an advancing glacial ice sheet and were subsequently overridden by the ice. Qvt is typically a nonsorted diamict consisting of very dense, silty sand with gravel and silty gravel with sand; fines are typically nonplastic to low -plasticity. Qvt has a consistency and strength similar to very soft rock. Qvt may contain interbeds, dikes, and lenses of cohesionless silt, sand, and grave , as well as cohesive clay and silt. This unit can also contain fractures, and cobbl s,nd boulders are common. ■ Vashon Till -Like Deposits (Qvd). V on ifijike deb sits are nonsorted to poorly sorted diamicts and are intermediate bet�glacia eer cia1 tilt nd glacial outwash. These sediments may have been reworked by ams owing in channels beneath the ice. Qvd soils have a similar ram si is 'but or Qvt (although generally lower fines content), but are e 1 mo var ble in c mp❑sition. ■ Vashon Advance Outwash Depo its ( a). a �on , vance outwash consists of glaciofluvial sediment deposit a the 1 cial is nc through the Puget Lowland. The encountered po 't a sis cry dense, poorly graded sand to silty s t va in a unt gra el nd s ttered cobbles. Saturated Qva deposits fo a pro Auctr ion aqui r. ■ Transitiv l Be De its nsition�al ed deposits are transitional between Vashon glad l an re- hon ❑ laccii deposits. They are typically fine-grained, consisting mostl oft 'ck a thin e a laminae of clay, silt, and fine sand (Minard, 1983). Major surface water features in the\ iicinityAclude Echo Lake and Lake Ballinger (approximately 4,700 southeast and 6' QOO feet east of the project, respectively), and Deer Creek, about 5,500 feet northwest of the project. 3.2 Local Geology and Hydrogeology The following summarizes the local surficial and subsurface geology based on published reports, databases, and previous studies: According to a published geologic map (Minard, 1983; Figure 3) and our previous 16 project test pit explorations (Shannon & Wilson, 2015), the project site is underlain at a shallow depth by glacial till. The top of the till was identified by our previous test pits as starting at between 0.5 and 3.5 feet deep. The transition from glacial lodgement till (Qvt) to glacial advance outwash (Qva) occurs at approximately elevation 380 to 400 feet on the steep wooded slope in the middle of the property. 21-1-220 82-003 -R 1. d ocx/wp/1 kn 21-1-22082-003 Packet Pg. 292 6.1.a SHANNON MLSON, INC. ■ Boring logs for the nearby Brightwater Project (CDM, 2006) and other nearby wells indicate that the Qva is laterally extensive in the area. ■ Based on Brightwater Project borings MW-4 and E-106 (drilled about 1,500 feet so«th of the project site along 2441h Street SW), transitional bed (Qtb) deposits underlie the Qva soils at about elevation 201 feet in the vicinity. The following summarizes the local groundwater conditions based on published reports, databases, and previous studies: ■ The Washington State Department of Ecology (1L logy) well logs and water resources records identify multiple irri atlo a d d� r�i tic wells in project area that are completed in the Qva aquifer. Nan of t es wells vp ears to be within 100 feet of site, and no municipal water supply k l is orte be within 500 feet of the site. ■ The top of the Qva aquifer occurs betwee do 288` nd 278 eet in the vicinity of Brightwater Project boring MW ■ The groundwater level in the va qui r s at ap�E, anay elevation 259 to 261 feet in City of Edmond ' bs io w !�ted approximately 4,500 feet west of the nro'ect site (S annon Wil on, 03}ti ■ The h dradlic ra 'ant in e' va a uifer�the s uthwest Edmonds area is appraximat �lly� w t at'a vut fo er fov (foot/foot). The annual groundwater level ftuctuat (Zn in }}e Q q regi n is li ly between about 2 and 5 feet. ■ The project site i ocat n�ide tide tch-'year time -of -travel zone for the town of Woodway's Deer ek t icipa } water supply surface water (spring) source (Figure 4). Figure 4 in icates th the hydraulic gradient for the Qva aquifer gradient is approximately west in tke pi ject vicinity. From our conversations with Olympic View Water and Sewer District (Olympic View) and our review of water resources documentation available from Ecology, we understand that Olympic View is in the process of developing a new water supply well at 8605 228th Street SW. This well has been drilled, reportedly to about 700 feet deep, but it is not yet in use. It is likely screened below the Qva aquifer. The existing well is located about 3,300 feet northeast of the project site. Olympic View personnel said it will soon be supplemented by a second new well. Olympic View personnel stated that they are not currently using other wells in the project vicinity. 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING 4.1 Drilling and Testing Program Our drilling and testing program consisted of the following: 21-1-22082-003-RI.docx/wp/Ikn 21-1-22082-003 4 Packet Pg. 293 6.1.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. ■ Subcontracted Holt Services, Inc. to complete two borings/wells. Drilled two adjacent soil borings using the sonic core drill method: — Pilot dry well, IW-1, to a depth of 91.2 feet; screened 63.3 to 90.4 feet deep. — Observation well, OW-1, approximately 25 feet west of IW-1, to a depth of 185.5 feet; screened 175.4 to 185 feet deep. x Logged and photographed the soil cores, and collected sub -samples for laboratory geotechnical analysis. ■ Constructed the wells using schedule 40 polyv' yl chloride (PVC) casing and machine -slotted (0.020-inch) PVC screen, felt.�p ck d with No. 10-20 Colorado silica sand. A bentonite chip surface se w lac6d ab ve each well's filter -packed zone. ■ Estimated the approximate well location d re nee el ations based on field measurements. ■ Developed observation well OW-1 ging ri' a 'al-s le p t� aterra) equipped with a combination surge block a ch val eas d groundwater quality field parameters during well devel a t. ■ Collected groundwater sa pI fir `rn ob ery ti we W-1 to establish baseline groundwate uality in a va aquifer, na e e sample for petroleum hydrocar n-relat . nnsti e s an rim r an secondary drinking water parameters. ea redroun a r qu sty field d parameters immediately before sample collec 'on. • Performed a "slu " test ' O -1 t esti ate the hydraulic conductivity of the Qva aquifer. ■ Commenced long-term and ater level monitoring in OW-1 in April 2016 by installing a Levelogger ana data logging barometer (Barologger). Regular data downloads are in progress. ■ Performed a pilot -scale inflow test in well IW-1 by adding water at known rates for a specified time periods and monitoring water levels in IW-1 and OW-1 before, during, and after the inflow test. — Step testing — performed four inflow steps at approximately 14, 38, 72, and 103 gallons per minute (gpm), maintaining each rate for approximately 1 hour; and — Short-term constant rate injection test, lasting 4.3 hours, at an average rate of about 110 gpm. 21- ]-22082-003-R 1. docx/wp/Ikn k, 21-1-22082-003 Packet Pg. 294 6.1.a SHANNON &WILSON. INC. 4.2 Findings 4.2.1 Observed Geologic Conditions Appendix A presents the exploration logs and includes a Soil Classification and Log Key that explains the terms used in the soil classifications and descriptions. The boring logs in Appendix A present details of the sonic core borings accomplished for this study, IW-1 and OW-1. Figure 5 presents a generalized illustration of the subsurface conditions we observed at these two borings. The results of these borings and hydrogeologic information interpreted from other studies in the vicinity are summarized as follow,: ■ Ablation till (Qvat) occurs from the OW-1 and IW-1, respectively. ■ Vashon lodgement till (Qvt) soils occur w Vashon till -like deposits (Qvd) are ' #+ soils, between approximately 28 a d 3 approximately 39 and 50 feet+at o •ink ■ Qvd and Vashqn-adv4,i 38 to 61 feet/and 50 to ■ Qva occu at bot' more fines a is i We interprete $h� exploration depth ■ Transitional bed der they may be present at 112V-1 to Face o a epth o bctGvecn 10 and 14 feet at b eath t Qv in b IIIIM-1 and OW-1. 'bed ith t to g lon of the Qvt f tat or , I 1 and between 0 ►. de os. is are 'rnerbedded at approximately ��O`Wil espectively. 10 to 4 eet of the Ova contains relativelv posits to approximately 60 to 61 feet deep. about 60 or 61 feet to the maximum A of Qva. (Qtb) w re not encountered by the two project borings, but v the, aximum exploration depth of 185.5 feet. 4.2.2 Groundwater Conditions 4.2.2.1 Groundwater Levels and Monitoring As indicated in the boring logs in Appendix A, we observed shallow perched groundwater in the Qvat deposits at IW-1 and OW-1, possibly as shallow as 5.5 feet deep in OW-1 and at about 9 to 14 feet in IW-1. During the installation of the IW-1 well, we observed perched water entering the borehole at about 11 feet deep. This saturated zone was perched above the underlying Qvt. Perched groundwater may be feeding the wetlands identified on the site slopes (Shannon & Wilson, 2016). We encountered a possible perched groundwater zone within the interbedded Qvd/Qva soils, between about 48 and 57.5 feet at IW-1 and about 50 to 53 feet at OW-1. 21-1-22052-003-R1.docx/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003 6 Packet Pg. 295 6.1.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. Another possible perched saturated zone was encountered at approximately 132.5 to 136.5 feet deep at OW-1, associated with a silty sand layer in the Qva unit. However, these saturated zones may also have been associated with residual water introduced during the drilling process. Apart from when water was introduced to it during the pilot -scale injection test, the well installed in boring IW-1 has been dry to date. During drilling, we encountered the regional Qva aquifer at boring OW-1 at approximately 167 feet deep (elevation 278 feet). We measured the Qva groundwater level to be approximately 168 to 169 feet deep (elevation 277 to 276 feet) after well OW-1 development and during sA monitoring during the period from April 12 to June 13, 2016 (Figure C-8 in Appa va aquifer gradient beneath the project site may be similar to that estimated b os stu for 238th Street SW (0.008 foot/foot westward), but additional project-s r monitoring locations may be required to verify this (Shannon & Wilson, 2 The top of the relatively low-ft es-conten option b the 'Qva`unit is about 60 to 61 feet deep (elevation 385 or 384 feet);tu t e 1W- 1 W-1 in�i VtLge'eted ring the April to June 2016 monitoring period, the apparent t t c e of thinfiltration zone in the Qva unit has been about feet e hed ater i r7er i .tJ�� va at 132.5 feet deep) or Q P) about 106 to 108 fee if mea ed to a gio 1 aq 'e h). 4.2.2.2 qui r Pr er#1 We analyzed slug a data sing the method developed by Bouwer & Rice (1976), as modified by Bouwer 4989). Figyks C-1 through C-7 and Table C-2 (Appendix C) present the test data and analytical The slug test results indicate the hydraulic conductivity (K) of the OW-1 screened zone is approximately 55 feet/day (3.8 x 10-2 feet/minute, or 1.9 x 10-2 centimeters per second [cm/sec]). This is about a half order -of -magnitude greater than the geomean of the K values (approximately 10 feet/day) that we estimated for the Qva aquifer from grain size test results (Table B-1, Appendix B). 4.2.3 Groundwater Quality In general, the OW-1 sample indicated that the project Qva aquifer groundwater quality is good. An exception was the relatively high concentration of manganese, 344 parts per billion (ppb), which is almost seven times the secondary (aesthetic) drinking water standard of 50 ppb. Manganese occurs naturally in soil and groundwater. The extent to which manganese dissolves into groundwater depends on the amount of oxygen in the water and, to a lesser extent, upon the 2 ]-1-22082-003-R1.docx/wp/Ikn 21-1-22082-003 7 Packet Pg. 296 6.1.a SHANNON MLSON, INC. pH of the water. If the oxygen content of groundwater is low, manganese tends to dissolve more readily. The zone from which the OW-1 groundwater sample was collected contains scattered organics, the decomposition of which depletes the oxygen content of the groundwater. This may contribute to the relatively high groundwater manganese concentration. Table C-1 in Appendix C summarizes the laboratory test results for the OW-1 groundwater sample and comparable drinking water standards. Appendix C also contains the associated laboratory data report. 4.2.4 Pilot -scale Injection Well Testing Figure 6 shows the results of the pilot-scal inje ti well dt,"�gIpm), ng. During the first four injection steps (approximately 1 hour each, at about 4, 38, the water column height in IW-I ranged from approximately 2 to 18 fee 89 to fe b""N wever, only during the first of these four steps did the water level t bilize. h fiftH,%tep'nfl rate ranged between about 107 and 126 gpm, averaging a ut gp du ' g last hour of the test. At this inflow rate, the IW-1 water level wa re t v l+ ab at a 6 eet below grade, or about 4 feet below the top of th I- s. ree , re re ntin a h a rise a ve the borehole bottom of about 24 feet. Based on these ata, ahli as �qmm 0 in ble C-3 (Appendix C): ■ The observed inje ion eci is ca acity of IW-1 is approximately 4.6 gpm/foot of water level rise, as s Qwn M )rigur 6. ■ The approximate K forth test zone is 24 feet/day (1.7 x 10-2 feet/min, or 8.4 x 10-3 cm/sec), based on an anal' of the test data using a method documented by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1990). ■ No change in groundwater level occurred in OW-1 in obvious response to the injection test Figure C-11 in Appendix C). Although groundwater level in OW-1 did increase slightly (about 0.2-foot) during the week after the testing, we do not believe this rise was clearly due to infiltration from IW-1. 5.0 STORMWATER QUALITY DISCUSSION We understand that the District is considering the use of bioretention for treatment and infiltration of some site stormwater. This best management practice (BMP) would likely target shallow, unsaturated Qvat soils. In areas where the Qvat soils have sufficient permeability, some flow control benefit could be realized. Additional flow control would be provided by proposed UIC wells. 21-1-22082-003-R1,docx/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003 8 Packet Pg. 297 6.1.a SHANNON MLSON, INC. Both UIC wells and bioretention are evolving technologies. Ecology requires that stormwater routed to flow control UIC wells receive, at a minimum, pre-treatment for total suspended solids (TSS) removal (a.k.a., basic treatment). Bioretention (BMP T7.30) is currently approved by Ecology for TSS removal prior to discharge to a UIC well (Ecology, 2006 and 2012). However, Ecology has noted that levels of some nutrients and metals, e.g., nitrate, phosphorus, and dissolved copper, may have temporarily higher effluent than influent concentrations after passing through bioretention soil constructed using Ecology's standard bioretention soil mix (BSM). Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. (Herrera) is conducting and reviewing research related to bioretention performance and BSM improvement/alter a' e mixes (Puget Sound Partnership, 2012; Curtis Hinman, personal communication). P rvi seare has identified the compost component of BSM to be the likely source for nut 'ent issoly copper leaching from bioretention soils (Herrera, 2012). Ecology is consi Bring re M en g a new BSM in 2017 based on these studies that can be used as an alternate to the, efail Eeo a BSM mix of 60 percent sand and 40 percent compost. �� 7 An elevated underdrain can reduce the n' on fra 'on bi etc tion effluent, but phosphorus reduction may q ire the s of oth B e.g., . sand filter, possibly containing metal oxide or other ad tives (Pu and rtne hip, 1 . Phosphorus reduction has also been documented fo yariou pro rieta rm ter t t t technologies that have achieved Ecology's general use evel a rav under hnoi gy Assessment Protocol — Ecology (TAPE). The introduction of nutrients`' tc C ells a contribute to biofoulin of the wells reducing Y g � g their effective life span (Nations Research C until [NRC], 1994). Contech Engineered Solutions, LLC (Sean Darcy, perso 1 ca unication) and the NRC (1994) have also noted that stormwater BMPs that receive constan baseflow can be more susceptible to biofouling than those that periodically dry out. We contacted Ecology (Douglas Howie, Senior Stormwater Engineer) to discuss reasons for UIC well failure. Mr. Howie stated that Ecology has not heard of indications of UIC well fouling due to the introduction of nutrients, but that UIC wells typically fail due to the introduction of TSS. Part of an effective TSS management policy is to prevent construction site runoff from entering UIC wells, as it can have elevated TSS levels. Based on experience recently gained by others in a Seattle Public Utilities stormwater management project, UIC wells should be also protected from receiving runoff from recently landscaped areas until those areas have stabilized, unless that water is adequately filtered (personal communication, Ron Walden, Aquatech Well Drilling & Pumps, Inc.). 21-1-22082-003-R1.docx/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003 9 Packet Pg. 298 6.1.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. TSS-fouled UIC wells are challenging to redevelop, so sediment fouling should be avoided whenever possible. Screened UIC wells can typically be redeveloped more effectively than can UIC wells that are primarily media -filled. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our current and previous site explorations, the shallow soil infiltration potential at the site is low, but infiltration into the underlying unsaturated, relatively low -fines -content Qva soils is feasible. n 6.1 Near -Surface Infiltration Based on our observations at the current borings an) Wilson, 2015), the infiltration potential of the site's shallow site soils are not feasible for the concen t-" stormwater. Shallow infiltration of small am nts c feasible on portions of the site. Baskeasuv,= �riisc that a series of shallow explorationd b would be feasible. The ploratioist of borings, and test pits/�We re ni some of these locationin orer to Or%ntl ous si test pits (Shannon & awv oils il�w. Therefore, i •atio of l `�ee volumes of ' ter a dispersdfacilities maybe wiC t pro ect team, we recommend i' a s which shallow infiltration in t' n of vacuum truck potholes, £jpI t infiltration tests in test pits at shallow infiltration rates. Perched surface water was p sent ka�allo'swVe adjacent to the OW-1 and IW-1 wells on multiple days in April 2016, inc din days % ere no precipitation had occurred. The swale water level was about 1 foot below urrou ding grade, indicating that surface soils are slow to drain in that area. The borings encoun ed subsurface perched water, possibly as shallow as 5.5 feet deep, and definitely by 11 feet deep, perched on the contact between the Qvat and Qvt deposits. In areas where shallow infiltration is being considered, we recommend the installation of shallow wells, e.g., at the interface between the Qvat and Qvt soils, in order to measure seasonal perched groundwater level fluctuation. 6.2 Dry Well Recommendations 6.2.1 General Based on the IW-1 inflow test, the use of UIC wells at the project site is feasible for stormwater management. The top of the target Qva infiltration zone (soils with predominantly low fines content) is 60 to 61 feet deep at the OW-1 and IW-1 locations. The depth to this contact may vary across the site. Based on the OW-1 log, perched groundwater layer may be 21-1-22082-003-R 1.docx/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003 10 Packet Pg. 299 6.1.a SHANNON WALSON, INC. present in the Qva at about 132 feet deep, and the top of the regional Qva aquifer is at about 168 feet deep. We understand that the District intends to install UIC wells in multiple clustered arrays. In the proposed array areas, we recommend that at least one deep soil boring (e.g., sonic core) be performed to identify the subsurface conditions. In our opinion, sonic core borings provide particularly high -quality subsurface information, but other drilling techniques might also be utilized for the exploratory borings. Deep wells or vibrating wire piezometers (VWPs) installed in the regional Qva aquifer would allow for measurement kthe Qva aquifer gradient beneath the site. Wells would be needed if additional groundw suspected perched zones are encountered during d�i Qva deposits, installation of wells or VWPs in thus+ of perched water levels and the potential mounding We also recommend that at least one f 1-s proposed UIC well cluster in order to con it our well array installation, we recommend t a and field testing, so t13a# mely adj4st ents t am We recomme'runn stormwater infiltration fr analysis) and slope stability. the U. S. Geological Survey Ecology does not allow W. ih0 slug testing is desired. If in the edominantly unsaturated zonestcn allow for measurement well operation. be`' stalted�nd tested at each p inn . Additionally, during UIC ery ion of UIC well installation made, if needed. 3ifs of the site to evaluate the effects of on the groundwater table (mounding are performed using programs such as to be discharged directly into an aquifer via UIC wells. The unsaturated Qva soils tested at the site have a "low" to "medium" treatment capacity, as defined in Table 5.2 of the UIC guidance (Ecology, 2006), based on grain size. Based on the low to medium treatment capacity of the unsaturated Qva soils below the target infiltration zone, a vertical separation of 10 to 25 feet would be required between the site UIC wells and underlying groundwater (including underlying perched groundwater, if present), if no stormwater treatment were used. However, since the UIC wells would be used for flow control, Ecology requires stormwater to be treated prior to its introduction to UIC wells (Ecology, 2006). We understand from District staff that basic treatment for TSS removal will be provided for project stormwater, and oil removal will be also be provided for stormwater generated from some portions of the project site, e.g., vehicle traffic areas. Therefore, the bottom of the stormwater UIC wells must be at least 5 feet above the underlying seasonal high groundwater level. Perched groundwater may be present at about 132 feet, based on OW-1. If this is the case, the maximum 2 1-1-220 82 -003 - R 1. docx/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003 11 Packet Pg. 300 6.1.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. allowed UIC well depth would be about 127 feet, depending on seasonal groundwater fluctuation; this is based on the 5-foot minimum separation from groundwater and assumes the infiltrated stormwater would undergo appropriate treatment prior to its introduction to the UIC wells. Based on our communications with Ecology (Mary Shaleen-Hansen, Water Quality Section), a surface seal through the Qvt soils will be required for project UIC wells. If a perched groundwater zone is present at the planned UIC arrays within the interbedded Qvd/upper Qva soils, the surface seal will need to be extended through it, well (potentially as deep as about 60 feet deep, based on the IW-1/OW-1 logs). Ms. If lqeq'�.Han,,,a stated that Ecology also requires UIC well management plans address coli rm,ds, d herbicides (i.e., through source control) in order to prevent introduction of t ese'Wq'an rtto UIC wells. 6.2.2 Preliminary Well Design There are two general types of deep U1 c WP esi&s 4k!� lbcally. These include: L� 1 �C � (a) large -diameter boreholes filled with 5 n d o ra 1 in ra �ogfinedia (with or without a well casing and screen)Zn d-(b) di an s ened�we Is, hic have a smaller filter -packed zone around the well cor no i 'al fi r pac at a I. Our prelimina IC 11 ign c Me 4ations are presented below and in Figure 7 Figure 7 conceptually illus ates nstr ctio as e,,c of a hybrid UIC well that combines infiltration media backfill wit a tr ssion casing and screen. The actual well depths and construction details may differ, b on en c untered hydrogeologic conditions and project goals: ■ Using a solid stem auger, drill a large -diameter hole (e.g., 30- to 36-inch) to the base of the till and till -like soils (estimated to be about 60 feet deep, or about elevation 385 feet). Drill a smaller diameter hole (e.g., 24-inch) from that depth to at least 40 to 50 feet into the unsaturated Qva soils (total depth of about 100 to 110 feet, or to about elevation 345 to 335 feet). Deeper wells may be feasible, depending on availability of drilling equipment and subsurface conditions (e.g., depth to perching layers, if any). Install a 24-inch-diameter steel casing (e.g., corrugated pipe) to the base of the larger diameter hole, and place an annular bentonite seal between the 24-inch casing and the sidewall. The intent of the seal is to protect the well and Qva aquifer from direct inflows of untreated surface water and to prevent the draining of the overlying perched zones. ■ Install threaded, 6- to 8-inch-diameter, Schedule 80 PVC pipe with about 40 to 50 feet of machine -slotted (0.020-inch) screen to near the bottom of the boring. Install an observation well consisting of threaded, 2-inch inside diameter, 21-1-22082-003-R1.docx/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003 12 Packet Pg. 301 6.1.a SHANNON 6VVILSON, INC. Schedule 40 PVC with about 40 to 50 feet of screen (0.020-inch) to a similar depth, so that the water level in the UIC well can be measured during periods of stormwater inflow. Backfill the 24-inch borehole around the PVC pipes with washed, rounded, select pea gravel (e.g., %-inch) or filter sand (e.g., 4 x 8 sand). Assuming similar conditions as encountered at IW-1 and OW-1, and scaling up our IW-1 field testing results to a 24-inch-diameter UIC well, our full-scale UIC well specific capacity estimate is about 6 to 10 gpm/foot of screen (short-term). Assuming good control over TSS and nutrients and relatively uniform site conditions, we recommend applying a multiplicative total car ction factor (CFT) of 0.36 to 0.5 to the well capacity. Applying these total carrect factors results in preliminary UIC well design specific capacities of 2.2 to g foot`Of�s reen in the unsaturated Qva. The CFT values are based on the produ�of re . factors identified in the 2012 Ecology Stormwater Management Man I fa tern ashington. These factors include CF,, for site variability and numbeY of test e'r orm F, for test method, and CF; for influent control. We estimate a va for FT as on the following assumptions: CFv = I (relatively un' of rm Si equ t ted}, Ft = 0.4, and CF; = 0.9. The less conservative CFT f 0.5 ay a ropt'i te, based on field test results/performance monitori g ❑ mujji�j a roj t C Hs. We understand that the minimum infiltration ra FT Idw, b t e by v dmonds code (City of Edmonds, nUICI�Sycjll "'vi r o . 2 'equiv Ien to ul- �plier of 0.5). To maint�' fun 'o iti ritic im rtant to protect the UIC wells from TSS loadi g� vhilthe. 'te is r co tructton, as well as during normal site use. Control of nut�ent7 adi� (e.g., nt ate d phosphorus) may also be important to reduce biofouli%an ui� de ad If stormwater is routed through bioretention facilitt ss pri its i troduction into UIC wells, sand filters or various other Ecology-app 10% d technolo ies may be useful to provide additional nutrient and TSS control. Also, a sand filte ayer within each UIC well vault can provide additional protection to thecu derlying infiltration medium; this sand filter should be replaced if it becomes clogged. Consideration should be given to constructing the UIC well array distribution system so that individual wells may be taken off-line for rehabilitation or so that they can periodically dry out, e.g., if persistent baseflow to the UIC array occurs. Two companies that commonly install media -filled UIC wells in the Puget Sound area are Pearson Drilling Inc. and Malcolm Drilling Company, Inc. Installation techniques typically involve drilling an open hole with a solid stem auger. Unit cost estimates for drilling and installing this type of UIC well are roughly $14,000 to $20,000, excluding surface vault and distribution system completion, spoils handling, well development, and field testing. Unit well drilling costs are greater if few wells are installed. 21-1-22082-003-R1,docx/wp/Ikn 13 21-1-22082-003 Packet Pg. 302 6.1.a SHANNON WLSON, INC. 6.2.3 Alternative Screened Well Preliminary Design Recommendations The cost for the traditional screened wells, assuming the use of wire -wrapped stainless steel screens, is roughly twice that of the hybrid screen -equipped media -filled wells. Traditional screened wells are commonly installed via air rotary drilling methods. Aquatech Well Drilling & Pumps, Inc., a company with considerable experience in UIC well installation in the Puget Sound area, estimated that the unit cost for drilling and installing traditional screened wells would be approximately $32,000 to $38,000 for the Madrona site. This estimate assumes nominal 6- to 8-inch-diameter screen (40 to 50 feet long), to 12-inch-diameter boreholes (100 to 110 feet deep), and the option to filter -pack arou Ve cre ith No. 10-20 silica sand. Screen slot size would depend on the soils encoun ered's type 4 well is easier to redevelop than hybrid screen -equipped media -filled wells. Thi is' � the borehole wall and in part due to the use of stainless steel steel screens are typically more durable than �eer 4 redevelopment activities. They also have hig sc�en�. e1 6.3 Additional Recommen Groundwater observat' wells be used to facilitate construction, they shoul'+cbe Administrative Code 173--11 the screen being closer to t►'adKonal wells. Stainless more vigorous ened wells. re'facility construction process and the wells are damaged during in accordance with Washington As indicated by Figure 4, the proj ct site is w thin the ten-year time -of -travel zone for the critical aquifer recharge area for the Deer 0-;eekm6nicipal water supply surface water source. This water supply is utilized by the town of oodway, and it is fed by springs within the Qva. We recommend coordinating stormwater infiltration efforts in the project area with the Olympic View to facilitate their compliance with Washington State Department of Health source water protection requirements established under the Watershed Control Program. We recommend that verification testing and performance monitoring be done at each completed site infiltration facility to check that the design infiltration parameters are adequate. We also recommend that a regular and perpetual maintenance program be performed for the infiltration facilities to reduce siltation and bio-fouling, in accordance with Ecology guidance. 21-1-22082-003-R1.docx/wp/1kn 21-1-22082-003 14 Packet Pg. 303 6.1.a SHANNON &WILSON, INC. 7.0 LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they presently exist. We further assume that the current field explorations are representative of the subsurface conditions at the proposed infiltration facility alignments; i.e., the subsurface conditions everywhere in the vicinity of the proposed infiltration facilities are not significantly different from those disclosed by the field explorations. Within the limitations of the scope, schedule, and budget, the analyses, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally environmental engineering principles and practice i tl prepared. We make no other warranty, either exp ess f recommendations were based on our understanding f the site conditions as interpreted from the field explo Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly e co merely taking soil samples or completing test exp. frequently require that additional expe to • Le Therefore, a contingency/fund ir�co mend d to This report was preps ed fo' made available to prose tip warranty of subsurface can presented in the discussions professional geotechnical and Tke time this report was lied. These conclusions and as'd,escribed in this report and i�h t be�fulty'determined by ab ected conditions rtrperly constructed project. Such potential extra costs. adds School District. It should be on factual data only, and not as a d from the exploration logs and included in this report. Shannon & Wilson has prepared Ap nd' D, "Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Report," to help you understand the use and limitations of our report. The scope of our services did not include an environmental assessment or evaluation regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface 2 ]-1-22082-003-R1.docx/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003 15 Packet Pg. 304 6.1.a SHANNON MILSON, INC. water, groundwater, or air, on or below or around the site. Shannon & Wilson has qualified personnel to assist you with these sei vices should they be necessary. SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Paul L. Van Horne, LHG Senior Hydrogeologist Martin Page, PE, Vice President Geotechnical Eng PVH:SDT:MWP/ 21-1-22082-003-R1/wp/lkn 16 21-1-22082-003 Packet Pg. 305 6.1.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. 8.0 REFERENCES ASTM International (ASTM), 2014, Annual book of standards, construction, v. 4.08, soil and rock (I), D420 — D5876: West Conshohocken, Penn., ASTM International, 1 v. Bouwer, H., 1989, The Bouwer and Rice slug test — an update: Ground Water, v. 27, no. 3, p. 304-309. Bouwer, H. and Rice, R.C., 1976, A slug test for determin unconfined aquifers with completely or partially pen Research, v. 12, p. 423-428. CDM, 2006, Geotechnical data report, Brightwate?� prepared for King County Department of Natur, Treatment Division, by CDM, Bellevue, Wash., City of Edmonds, 2010, Stormwater code supoemeRt to Code Chapter 18.30: Edmonds, Was ., April4 Herrera Environmental mix, 185th Avenue Department of Minard, J.P., 1983, quadrangles, I W r , by � is m of el G National Research Council (NR �, 19 4, quality: Committee on groui Commission on geosciences, Washington, D.C., 304 p. hydraulic conductivity of tins wells: Water Resources west contract, Report rks. Wastewater ty Development M t export from bioretention soil � ared for City of Redmond, October 15. and part of the Edmonds west y MF-1541, 1:24,000 scale. ind water recharge using waters of impaired large, Water science and technology board, t, and resources: National Academy Press, Puget Sound Partnership, 2012, Low impact development technical guidance manual for Puget Sound: Tacoma, Wash., December. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (Shannon & Wilson), 2013, Final infiltration study report, SW Edmonds basin study projects #1 and #3, Edmonds, Wash.: Report prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, Wash., project no. 21-1-21768-001, for City of Edmonds, Edmonds, Wash., April 5. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (Shannon & Wilson), 2015, Preliminary geotechnical engineering report, New Madrona K-8 Project, Edmonds, Wash.: Report prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, Wash., project no. 21-1-22082-001, for Edmonds School District #15, Lynnwood, Wash., August 6. 21-1-22082-003-R1.docx/wp/1kn 17 21-1-22082-003 Packet Pg. 306 6.1.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (Shannon & Wilson), 2016, Wetland and stream delineation report, New Madrona K-8 Project, City of Edmonds, Wash.: Report prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, Wash., project no. 21-1-22082-002, for Edmonds School District #15, Lynnwood, Wash., May 18. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1990, Procedure for constant head hydraulic conductivity tests in single drill holes (USBR 7310-89), in Earth Manual, Part 2, A Water Resources Technical Publication, 3`d ed., Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colo. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), 2005, Stormwater management in Western Washington, Volume III, Hydrologic analysis and flow control design/BMPs: Olympia, Wash., publication no. 05-10-31, February. /,- Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) 2006, iidanc for UIC wells that manage stormwater: Olympia, Wash., publication no. 05, 0-067, e e nbe Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecojogy), Western Washington, Volume III, Hydrol gic n, Wash., publication no. 12-10-030, A4gi�sk � , 21-1-22082-003-R1.docx/wp/Ikn 18 ;ement manual for MPs: Olympia, 21-1-22082-003 Packet Pg. 307 7 Y i ' , p' • ■ :.ti rq LI cation SeattSeattle i j Ij u i y s I '238th 5 SW , ` t Tit s� 238th St• SW , -, -- . *`rv:; 2dath Sl SW L b Lake Ballinger f _ _ —__- • • '` ass r ~; •.1 N�.2a5th 5S _. All ' � - fig• _ s t7 :.Go le earth WO 6.1.a LEGEND 0 200 400 Data Point and Designation ■ Wetland Boundary Scale in Feet Wetland Buffer ow-� ® Observation Well Designation and Approximate Location jw-1 o Dry Well Designation and Approximate Location At Generalized Subsurface Profile NOTE Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by Google Earth Pro, reproduced by permission granted by Google Earth TM Mapping Service. Packet Pg. 309 6.1.a t Q Vv Qtb Qvt Qvt MI-- Ova Qtb ❑w-- ❑v t Qvt Ova Qvt I _ e GIs a ❑w Qvr PROJECT SITE Qvr Ova ml� Ow i. 2 Qtb Ova 0vt 0 2000 4000 NOTE f Map adapted from 1:24,000 USGS geologic map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West, Approximate Scale in Feet WA quadrangle, dated 1983. LEGEND Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report New Madrona K-8 Project MI Modified Land Edmonds, Washington QIS Landslide Deposits Qvr Vashon RecessionalOutwash Qvt Vashon Till SURFICIAL GEOLOGIC MAP Qva Vashon Advance Outwash Qtb Transitional Beds June 2016 21-1-22082-003 Qw Whidbey Formation SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 3 Geolechnical and Environmental Consultants Packet Pg. 310 Filename: JA21 1 \22082-003\21-1-22085-003 Fig 4.dwg Date: 06-13-2016 Login: bac I k� 2 � ��rii 5 s� � �_- ��' �' 1 • • (1 , t-�/ r-' q • � . ems--: I� $ef1LL.IC� � EL j �WJ 'N"i rk. i� dt�... ■ ' •tea ' ,E• _4 � 4 N A _ / .-"�. r_' � � .•..,Y_ y c •I�i� .$�...n ry .•� a �•yn t '' ,�• : _ ,.� � . 5 .f _ s•` yY.Jwwa "�d... � �T7i ,^. ,' - ":3:: _ - � / .Yr, i �._ a s-='�l'� _ _! f •aw ss •iH µ`} Mr4" 1. +• �6O,Y&C •• ..-. �.0 ,A.: A-J, F _ • '. �� +-�1.'!!.. ��rti • .L-_..*.: _ ���� --'S _ 1 -"met .. _ • •'� %sl:cranae - Div{ � %' F•It: � � i,.: ISM Deer ✓✓reek _ e. "Year Treatment ff 'I F ear ';"i _.!r fop .." 5 ear n PI nt � Leon roils a:.-- Watershed .< _uffet . -� •,:f'' z'! Boundary •� �r�. _r •'�.. .,,. one. �f `PROJECT F B.alt'"ger . :' SITE �w • ti � - 4 •� i "+?s �.; _ ..G ^!•' 1"--`-* Not to Scale NOTE Figure adapted from Water Supply Protection Area Q Map, by Robinson & Noble, Inc., 2001. Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) A West 500 r Wetland C (Prof. 68' S) 450 Existing Ground Surface 400 Project Area k A' East 500 OW-1 (pro]. 0.) IW-1 (Proj. 9' S) Wetland B 450 A� Oval 4 Ovt o Ovd/Ova 400 d LL C O 350 m m E E X 2 n n Q 300 Ova, unsaturated Possible Perched Zone Above Silty Sand Cva Layer a --! - — — — — -r ? — —7 250 3 200 9 L Otb (Extrapolated from Non-Projed Deep Borings in Vicinity) 150 250 200 150 0 200 400 0 50 100 Horizontal Scale in Feet Vertical Scale in Feet Vertical Exaggeration = 4x LEGEND OW-1 Boring Designation (Proj 9' S) Projection Distance and Direction 4 Ground Surface 9 Possible Perched Zone 7 7 Approximate Geologic Contact Weil screen Bottom of Well .,,-o Seep = Regional Groundwater Level g Perched Groundwater Level Ovat Vashon Ablation Till Ovl Vashon Lodgement Till Ovd Vashon Till -like Deposits Ova Vashon Advance Outwash Otb Transitional Beds (Fine Grained) OW-1 Observation Well IW-1 Dry Well 01 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) R 6.1.a Sand for Supplementary Infiltration Filtering (To Replace as Needed) Quarry Spalls - ,= - UIC Well Vault and Cover 2" 0, Threaded, Sch. 40 Tiurrill-Like Deposits PVC Blank Casing 6-8" 0, Threaded, Sch. 80 PVC Blank Casing - Geologic Contact Unsaturated Advance Outwash Deposits 2" 0, Threaded Machine Slotted, Sch. 40 PVC Screen (0.020-inch Slots) Threaded PVC End Caps Seasonal High Water Table NOTE Pretreated Stormwater from Distribution Header 30-36" 0 Borehole Bentonite Seal 24" Corrugated Steel Casing — 24" 0 Borehole 3/8" Pea Gravel or 4x8 Sand Backfill Infiltration Medium (Washed, Rounded) I Minimum 5' " 17— Not to Scale Pre-treatment (minimum = basic treatment for solids removal) is required for stormwater discharges to dry wells intended for use as flow control facilities (Guidance for UIC Wells that Manage Stormwater, Ecology publication No. 05-10-067, 2006). Additional treatment may be required, depending on vadose zone treatment capacity and stormwater pollutant loading. 6-8" 0, Threaded Machine Slotted, Sch. 80 PVC Screen (0.020-inch Slots) * (Required separation may be greater depending on pre-treatment, groundwater mounding potential, vadose zone treatment capacity, and pollutant loading.) r C m E W U Q. m 0 0 v U) ca c 0 L M 0) v r Packet Pg. 314 6.1.a PARTICLE SIZE DEFINITIONS Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (S&M, uses a soil identification system modified from the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Elements of the USCS and other definitions are provided on this and the following pages. Soil descriptions are based on visual -manual procedures (ASTM D2488) and laboratory testing procedures (ASTM D2487), if performed. S&W INORGANIC SOIL CONSTITUENT DEFINITIONS Y CONSTITUENT FINE-GRAINED SOILS COARSE -GRAINED (50% or more tines)' SOILS less than 50%fines Silt Lean Clay, _ _ Major Elastic SH or Sand or Gravel4 Fat Cla Modifying (Secondary) 30% or more More than 12% Precedes major coarse -grained: tine-gralned con tit ent Sandy or Gravelly' Silty or clayey 15% to 30% 5% to 12% coarse -grained: fine-grained: Minor with Sand or with Silt or with Grav_el4 CIaLr3 Follows major _ 30% or more total _with _ _ _ _ constituent coarse-grained and 15% or more of a lesser coarse- second coarse - grained constituent grained constituent: is 15% or more: with Sand or with Sand or with Gravels with Gravel s Ail percentages are by weight of total specimen passing a 3-inch sieve. 1The order of terms is: Modifying Major with Minor. 'Determined based on behavior. 'Determined based on which constituent comprises a larger percentage. 'Whichever is the lesser oonsl tuent. MOISTURE CONTENT TERMS Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Moist Damp but no visible water Wet Visible free water, from below water table STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) SPECIFICATIONS Hammer: 140 pounds with a 30-inch free fall. Rope on 6- to 10-inch-diam. cathead 2-1/4 rope turns, > 100 rpm NOTE: If automatic hammers are used, blow counts shown on boring logs should be adjusted to account for efficiency of hammer. Sampler: 10 to 30 inches long Shoe I.D. = 1.375 inches Barrel I.D. = 1.5 inches Barrel O.D. = 2 inches N-Value: Sum blow counts for second and third 6-inch increments. Refusal: 50 blows for 6 inches or less; 10 blows for 0 inches. NOTE: Penetration resistances (N-values) shown on boring logs are as recorded in the field and have not been corrected for hammer efficiency, overburden, or other factors. DESCRIPTION SIEVE NUMBER AND/OR APPROXIMATE SIZE FINES < #200 (0.075 mm = 0.003 in.) SAND Fine #200 to #40 (0.075 to 0.4 mm; 0.003 to 0.02 in.) Medium #40 to #10 (0.4 to 2 mm; 0.02 to 0.08 in.) Coarse #10 to #4 (2 to 4.75 mm; 0.08 to 0.187 in.) GRAVEL Fine #4 to 3/4 in. (4.75 to 19 mm; 0.187 to 0.75 in.) Coarse 3/4 to 3 in. (19 to 76 mm) COBBLES 3 to 12 in. (76 to 305 mm) BOULDERS > 12 in. (305 mm) RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS N, SPT, RELATIVE N, SPT, RELATIVE BLOWS/FT. DENSITY BLOWS/FT, CONSISTENCY < 4 Very loose < 2 Very soft 4-10 Loose 2-4 Soft 10-30 Medium dense 4-8 Medium stiff 30-50 Dense 8 - 15 Stiff > 50 Very dense 15 - 30 Very stiff > 30 Hard WELL AND BACKFiLL SYMBOLS ®Bentonite ' Surface Cement Cement Grout I7pw Seal Bentonite Grout Asphalt or Cap Bentonite Chips Slough Silica Sand Inclinometer or Non -perforated Casing Perforated or Screened Casing �i I �u Vibrating Wire Piezometer PERCENTAGES TERMS'' 2 Trace < 5% Few 5 to 10% Little Some Mostly 15 to 25% 30 to 45% 50 to 100% 'Gravel, sand, and fines estimated by mass. Other constituents, such as organics, cobbles, and boulders, estimated by volume. 2Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org. Packet Pg. 315 6.1.a UNIFIED SOIL CLASSWICATION SYSTEM (USCS) (Modified From USACE Tech Memo 3-357, ASTM D2487, and ASTM D2488) MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP/GRAPHIC TYPICAL IDENTIFICATIONS SYMBOL GW .`• Well -Graded Gravel; Well -Graded Gravel with Sand Gravel GP ° ❑° poorly Graded Gravel; Poorly Graded Gravels (less than 5% ones) (more than 50% a p Gravel with Sand of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve) Silty or Clayey GM ' 1 Silt Gravel; SiltyGravel with Sand Y Gravel GC Clayey Gravel; Clayey Gravel with Y Y Y COARSE- (more ltra.r 12% Gr+eSJ GRAINED Sand SOILS (mare than 50% retained on No. SW Well -Graded Sand; Well -Graded Sand 200 sieve) Sand with Gravel (less than 5% titres) SP Poorly Graded Sand; Poorly Graded Sands Sand with Gravel (50% or more of coarse fraction passesi the h eNo. 4 Silty or SM Silty Sand; Silty Sand with Gravel Clayey Sand (more [Han 12% fines) SC Clayey Sand; Clayey Sand with Gravel ML Silt; Silt with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Si It Inorganic CL Lean Clay; Lean Clay with Sand or Silts and Clays (liquid fimil less Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Lean Clay than 50) Organic OL =— Organic Silt or Clay, Organic Silt or Clay with Sand or Gravel, Sandy or FINE-GRAINED SOILS — — — — Gravelly Organic Sitt or Clay (50% or more passes the No. 240 sieve) MH Elastic Silt; Elastic Silt with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Elastic Silt Inorganic CH Fat Clay, Fat Clay Sand or Gravel; Silts and Clays (liquid limit 50 or Fat Sandy or Gravelly Fat Clay more] Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or Organic OH Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay ORGANIC Primarily organic matter, dark in PT Peat or other highly organic soils (see SOILS color, grid organic odor ASTM D4427) NOTE: No. 4 size = 4.75 mm = 0.187 in.; No. 200 size = 0.075 mm = 0.003 in. NOTES 1. Dual gymbols (symbols separated 6y a ltyphon i.e.. SP•SM. Sand with i1 are used for soils V h between ° and 12°I fines or when the liquid limi�_rd lady index values plgt in the QL=ML area of the plasticily Chart. Graphics shown on the logs for these soil types are a oambi nation of t h a two graphic symbols (g.g,. 5P and SM). "-Orderline_symbols [symbols separpjed by a stash. i.e., CLIML. Lean Clay to Silt: SP-SMISM. Sand with Silt to Silty Sand) indicate that the i t rti are close to the defining between two groups. M Cl) CD r N r C d t v tc t 3 O L M N IM C Q ti N O 0 to 0 N Z J IL C N E L V M Q Packet Pg. 316 6.1.a Poorly Graded Narrow range of grain sizes present or, within the range of grain sizes present, one or more sizes are missing (Gap Graded). Meets criteria in ASTM D2487, If tested. Well -Graded Full range and even distribution of grain sizes present. Meets criteria in ASTM D2487, if tested. CEMENTATION TE ' Weak Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight finger pressure. Moderate Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger pressure. Strong Will not crumble or break with finger pressure. APPROX. PLASITICITY DESCRIPTION VISUAL -MANUAL CRITERIA INDEX RANGE Nonplastic A 1/8-in, thread cannot he rolled <4 at any water content. Low A thread can barely be rolled and 4 to 10 a lump cannot be formed when drier than the plastic limit. Medium A thread is easy to roll and not 10 to 20 much time is required to reach the plastic limit. The thread cannot be rerolled after reaching the plastic limit. A lump crumbles when drier than the plastic limit. High It takes considerable time rolling > 20 and kneading to reach the plastic limit. A thread can be rerolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. A lump can be formed without crumbling when drier than the plastic limit. Mottled Irregular patches of different colors. Bioturbated Soil disturbance or mixing by plants or animals. Diamict Nonsorted sediment; sand and gravel in silt and/or clay matrix. Cuttings Material brought to surface by drilling. Slough Material that caved from sides of borehole. Sheared Disturbed texture, mix of strengths. Angular Sharp edges and unpolished planar surfaces. Subangular Similar to angular, but with rounded edges. Subrounded Nearly planar sides with well-rounded edges. Rounded Smoothly curved sides with no edges. Flat Width/thickness ratio > 3. Elongated Length/width ratio > 3. ATD At Time of Drilling Diam. Diameter Elev. Elevation ft. Feet FeO Iron Oxide gal. Gallons Horiz. Horizontal HSA Hollow Stem Auger I.D. Inside Diameter in. Inches lbs. Pounds MgO Magnesium Oxide mm Millimeter MnO Manganese Oxide NA Not Applicable or Not Available NP Nonplastic O.D. Outside Diameter OW Observation Well pcf Pounds per Cubic Foot PID Photo -Ionization Detector PMT Pressuremeter Test ppm Parts per Million psi Pounds per Square Inch PVC Polyvinyl Chloride rpm Rotations per Minute SPT Standard Penetration Test USCS Unified Soil Classification System q Unconfined Compressive Strength VWP Vibrating Wire Piezometer Vert. Vertical WOH Weight of Hammer WOR Weight of Rods Wt. Weight Interbedded Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers at least 1/4-inch thick; singular: bed. Laminated Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers less than 1/4-inch thick; singular: lamination. Fissured Breaks along definite planes or fractures with little resistance. Slickensided Fracture planes appear polished or glossy; sometimes striated. Blocky Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular lumps that resist further breakdown. Lensed Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, such as small lenses of sand scattered through a mass of clay. Homogeneous Same color and appearance throughout. 'Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org. 2Adapted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org. Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report New Madrona K-8 Project Edmonds, Washington SOIL DESCRIPTION AND LOG KEY June 2016 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. GeoteOnlcal and Environmental Consultants Packet Pg. 317 6.1.a LEGEND 0 200 400 Data Point and Designation Wetland Boundary Scale in Feet �� Wetland Buffer ow-� ® Observation Well Designation and Approximate Location 1w-1 0 Dry Well Designation and Approximate Location A tGeneralized Subsurface Profile NOTE Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by Google Earth Pro, reproduced by permission granted by Google Earth TM Mapping Service. Packet Pg. 318 6.1.a w VIA ri 0 J s Qvt Qv► PROJECT SITE NI' va tnl� QYI uw JQ?tb ova ❑Vt 44 Map adapted from 1:24,000 USGS geologic map of h the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West, Approximate Scale in Feet WA quadrangle, dated 1983. LEGEND Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report New Madrona K-8 Project ml Modified Land Edmonds, Washington QIS Landslide Deposits Qvr Vashon RecessionalOutwash Qvt Vashon Till SURFICIAL GEOLOGIC MAP Qva Vashon Advance Outwash Qtb Transitional Beds June 2016 21-1-22082-003 QW Whidbey Formation SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 3 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Packet Pg. 319 Filename: J:}211\22082-003}21-1-22085-003 Fig 4 dwg Date: 06-13-2016 Login: bac :PT='i� L .�� v�1 0•. .� . 1 .� '� �I� - •• .17�h•�Kiwad' .�iri ;�al Lrt� 5 -. w 1 r % � � f q • ev--'- 1 _ �SC¢LLI� -�=f wow r :q =ig ;vY� , .' ! ._�'.�. + .: Fan1a _•-'�•- .. ...». ,.,Y.v:y •�' ' wyq}iP �._ , __ Y � YI�.'� �• �• C �! ..Sbt n.s777N Q Y'Ef : : ...: _.2r r -J36 ��• •lax?•� f-04i2.. •.&M." 1�. �, R :�.: ���•.r � •�hF1L�.' ice• a •1. � .. �` ��•,'�, 1. ,_ Deer Creek - ear '�" Year ;, ` f Treatmento{► ' '� 5' Tear P ant r_:_ �ontrolle r• , • .'t .f a x " Watershed 1 rl. Boundary ..�t�;• one rI l Y 31 ■: .'�• :1 _ �•f.•.l. "• �,I € �fl -.a •,'t �„, . _a_rA� e.T_c_ Laka ' ■" - PROJECT Xrri SITE _ } YRA Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report Not to Scale New Madrona K-8 Project Edmonds, Washington DEER CREEK WATER SUPPLY NOTE CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE -n Figure adapted from Water Supply Protection Area D AREA MAP Map, by Robinson &Noble, Inc., 2001. • June 2016 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 4 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants iu Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) A West 500 •— Wetland C (Prof. 68' S) 450 Existing Ground Surface 400 d m LL m 350 — W o 300 F Project Area A' East 5W OW-1 (Prof 0') IW-1 (Proj. 9' S) Wetland B 450 Qval Qvt 4 � Qvd/Qvt Qvd/Qva 400 d LL c Qva, unsaturated Possible Perched Zone Above Silty Sand Qva Layer I Qra, 63Wa1p6 g 250 ° 200 ° a Qtb (Extrapolated from Non -Project Deep Borings in Vicinity) 150 n 350 m' LU m E 0 n n Q 300 250 200 150 0 200 400 0 50 100 Horizontal Scale in Feet Vertical Scale in Feet Vertical Exaggeration = 4x LEGEND OW-1 Boring Designation (Proj. 9' S) Projection Distance and Direction +— Ground Surface Possible Perched Zone 7 ? Approximate Geologic Contact Well Screen Bottom of Well so Seep 1 Regional Groundwater Level 4 Perched Groundwater Level Qval Vashon Ablation Till Qvt Vashon Lodgement Till Qvd Vashon Till -like Deposits Qva Vashon Advance Outwash Qtb Transitional Beds (Fine Grained) OW-1 Observation Well IW_1 Dry Well P, 01 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) I 6.1.a Sand for Supplementary Infiltration Filtering (To Replace as Needed) Quarry Spalls I 2" 0, Threaded, Sch. 40 Tiurrill-Like Deposits PVC Blank Casing o a� fl 1 qA 1 4 6-8" 0, Threaded, Sch. 80 o PVC Blank Casing °o Geologic Contact i ° °o Unsaturated Advance Outwash Deposits UIC Well Vault and Cover — Pretreated Stormwater from Distribution Header 30-36" 0 Borehole Bentonite Seal 24" Corrugated Steel Casing 24" 0 Borehole 3/8" Pea Gravel or 48 Sand Backfill Infiltration Medium (Washed, Rounded) G 3 .� n r 2" 0, Threaded Machine o� 6-8" 0, Threaded Machine Slotted, Sch. 40 PVC Screen ° — o°� Slotted, Sch. 80 PVC Screen (0 020-inch Slots) oao� (0.020-inch Slots) a 6 na°°o a Threaded PVC End Caps Minimum 5' " y" (Required separation may be Seasonal High Water Table S7 f greater depending on pre-treatment, _ groundwater mounding potential, vadose zone treatment capacity, and pollutant loading.) Not to Scale NOTE Pre-treatment (minimum = basic treatment for solids removal) is required for stormwater discharges to dry wells intended for use as flow control facilities (Guidance for UIC Wells that Manage Stormwater, Ecology publication No 05-10-067, 2006). Additional treatment may be required, depending on vadose zone treatment capacity and stormwater pollutant loading. Packet Pg. 323 6.1.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. 21-1-22082-003 C M T N C t V t 3 0 0. CD L N m C Q ti N O O T 0 N Z J a c m E 0 Q Packet Pg. 324 6.1.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A.I GENERAL............................................................................................ A-1 A.2 SOIL BORINGS....................................................................................................... A-1 A.3 WELL INSTALLATION ............................... ........... ................ �........................... A-2 A.4 SOIL SAMPLING AND CLASSIFICAT ON .. . A-2 A-1 Summa y of Well I sn tal ation etaiIs G A -I Soil Description`aizd Leg Key 3 sheets) A-2 Log of Sonic Core�l W 1 A-3 Log of Sonic Core 0,- 21-1-22082-003-R1-AA.docx/wp/Ikn A-1 21-1-22082-003 r c as E w u Q. m 0 0 U) �a c 0 L Cl) M Packet Pg. 325 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. TABLE A-1 SUMMARY OF WELL INSTALLATION DETAILS Opco Apprns. Cain g Raring Approi. Ground �lvnumtsrt Slickup Open Monument Casing Ma- ,_° Casing Slickdown Approx_ Casing Tap of Bottom of A Approx. Filter Pack Screen Screen Screen Approx. Screen Drprh Below Apprnx. Well and EC0105y LVcll Surface Above Rim Burrhuty and 8c101A Rim inter Filter Elevation Slot Top $ett0m F]cvalion Screen Casing Bottom Sump N'rll Na. Tag No. inslallalion Dale F]n-ation' If"* Grade''` (feed 0evatian'•` (feel) Diamelcr` (inches) ❑iamctcr' [inches) 4t9namene (feel) Elevation" (feet) Filter Type Drpih" (fctt) Depth` (feel) R2nor"6 (fees ) Size {inches) Deplhy {feet] Depth' ( feet] Rnngr'd {feee} Length` [fart] Rimy (feet) EJeyaiioti a {feet] Length` (feet) IW-I BJZ 272 4/21/2016 4449 265 441 5 ]0,5 G" PVC 056 ��q'V ri _ NoV 0-20 59.2 91 2 385 7 - 353 7 0 020 G3 3 90 4 301 6 - 354 5 27 1 93 0 354.0 045 448.1 6.0 2" PVC 0,38 1Vo. I �20 ! 70 0 0.020 188.0 259.7 034 OW-1 BJZ 265 4/7/201 f, 445 1 3 04 447 7\ 185 5 275.1 - 259 G 175 4 185 0 269 7 - 260 0 9.7 Notes: Based on diferential levels shot with reference to catch basin (CB) at south and of muting track CB elevaban frala elettrenic clam[ file dated July 28, 2015 The reference vertical datum is North American Vertical Datum (NAVD)88 Value shown was based on hand measurements during well conshuctiom Unless otherwise noted, depths - iel eryeed to d snrAcc Well OW-1 was developed on April 12, 2016, using a check valve -type inertial pump equipped with a rruga,bl (Wafarra): appi.6N. Ztdr 68 gallons of water were removed Ecology = Washington State Department of Ecology �� PVC=polyvinyl chloride 21-1-22082-003-R I-TA-1/wp/[kn Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) SHANNON MWILSON, INC. APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS A.1 GENERAL The subsurface exploration program for the Project was conducted by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (Shannon & Wilson). The exploration program consisted of two soil borings, consisting of a pilot underground injection control (UIC) well (IW-1) an%an bservation well (OW-1). Holt Services, Inc. (Holt) completed the borings betwee Ali it 4 11.,2016, under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson. We estimated the well locati7ps a de elevations by measuring from previously mapped site features. Figure 2 shows Figure A-1 presents a Soil Classification and classifications and descriptions. The logs of A-3. r- A.2 SOIL BO Holt drilled the soil Crawler sonic drill rig. '`ie c a depth of 185.5 feet below\i completed on April 21, 2016, locations. ter:s/Figures s sed in the soil A-2 and Tema-Sdnic International, 150CC Compact OW-1) was completed on April 7, 2016, to The pilot UIC well boring (IW-1) was Holt used the rotosonic (sonic) drilling efhod to drill the borings. Sonic drilling uses high - frequency vibratory motion applied to tie top of the drill column, along with down -pressure and rotation, to obtain nearly continuous core samples of soil. Soil samples were obtained using a 4-inch inside diameter (I.D.) core barrel for the observation well installation and a 7-inch I.D. core barrel for the pilot UIC well installation. As the drill column was advanced into the ground, soil entered the core barrel. After advancing the core barrel (termed a core "run"), the core barrel was removed from the borehole, and the soil core was extracted from the core barrel into labelled plastic bags. Each core run was typically about 10 feet long, although shorter runs were used in harder drilling situations. After retrieval of the soil core for a specific interval, a temporary casing was vibrated to the bottom of the sampled interval. The casing was then cleared of slough, and the drill column and core barrel were advanced, starting at the bottom of the temporary casing. 21-1-22082-003-RI-AAdocx/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003 A-1 Packet Pg. 327 6.1.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. Drilling and sampling progress was generally easier at the larger diameter boring, IW-1, than at boring OW-1. Holt's opinion was that the larger diameter tooling used at IW-1 allowed coarse gravels and cobbles to more easily enter the core barrel during sampling. Drill cuttings and spoils were put into drums that Holt removed after the drilling program. A.3 WELL INSTALLATION The wells were installed through the temporary casing, which was withdrawn as the annular backfill was placed. The wells were constructed of threa ed Schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing and machine -slotted (0.020-inch) PVC sire n. 'I PVC casing was 6-inch I.D. for IW-1 and 2-inch I.D. for OW-1. The screened intetY .1 were filter -packed with No. 10-20 Colorado silica sand. A bentonite chip surface seal zone. Well construction details are presented on the Table A-l. We measured the approximate grade,and levels we shot with reference to a storm grate*ated storm grate elevation was provided on aZtp.pgraphic Appendix C for further groundwater-reld�s SSj each well's filter -packed and A-3) and in ition�A-2 ed on differential idbftKe adjacent track; the ,the District. See A.4 SOIL SAMPLING AANDD CL S IF ATI� J A Shannon & Wilson eh inee - obse� ed d ° ge the drilling operations at IW-1 and OW-1, and he photographed and gc' lecte • sub § mp yes o'f tt IW-1 soil cores infield. A Shannon & Wilson geologist logged and otogrgP ed th OW-1 soil cores in Shannon & Wilson's warehouse and also reviewed the I\W-1 photo raphs and subsamples. We transferred representative soil samples collects - o e soil cores to our Seattle laboratory for analysis (see Appendix B). The boring logs in this report represent our interpretation of the field logs. 21-1-22082-003-R1-AA.docx/wp/1kn FEW 21-1-22082-003 Packet Pg. 328 6.1.a PARTICLE SIZE DEFINITIONS Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (S&VV), uses a soil identification system modified from the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Elements of the USCS and other definitions are provided on this and the following pages. Soil descriptions are based on visual -manual procedures (ASTM D2488) and laboratory testing procedures (ASTM D2487), if performed. S&W INORGANIC SOIL CONSTITUENT DEFINITIONS z FINE-GRAINED SOILS CONSTITUENT (50% or more fines)' COARSE -GRAINED SOILS less than 50%fines' Silt, Lean Clay, Major Elastic SIR or § Sand or Gravel ° Fat Cla Modifying (Secondary) 30% or more More than 12% Precedes major coarse -grained: Gravelly" fine-grained: Silty Clayey 3 constituent Sandy or 15% to 30% or 5% to 12% coarse -grained: fine-grained: with Sand or with Silt or with Gravel ° With Claz_ Follows major _ 30 0 or more total constituent coarse -grained and 15% or more of a lesser coarse- second coarse - grained constituent grained constituent: is 15% or more: with Sand or With Sand or with Gravel' With Gravels 'All percentages are by weight of total specimen passing a 3-inch sieve. 'The order of terms is: Modifying Major with Minor. 'Determined based on behavior. 'Determined based on which constituent comprises a larger percentage. 'Whichever is the lesser constituent. MOISTURE CONTENT TERMS Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Moist Damp but no visible water Wet Visible free water, from below water table STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) SPECIFICATIONS Hammer: 140 pounds with a 30-inch free fall. Rope on 6- to 10-inch-diam. cathead 2-1/4 rope turns, > 100 rpm NOTE: If automatic hammers are used, blow counts shown on boring logs should be adjusted to account for efficiency of hammer. Sampler: 10 to 30 inches long Shoe I.D. = 1.375 inches Barrel I.D. = 1.5 inches Barrel O.D. = 2 inches N-Value: Sum blow counts for second and third 6-inch increments. Refusal: 50 blows for 6 inches or less; 10 blows for 0 inches. NOTE: Penetration resistances (N-values) shown on boring logs are as recorded in the field and have not been corrected for hammer efficiency, overburden, or other factors. DESCRIPTION SIEVE NUMBER AND/OR APPROXIMATE SIZE FINES < #200 (0.075 mm = 0.003 in.) SAND Fine #200 to #40 (0.075 to 0.4 mm; 0.003 to 0.02 in.) Medium #40 to #10 (0.4 to 2 mm; 0.02 to 0.08 in.) Coarse #10 to #4 (2 to 4.75 mm; 0.08 to 0.187 in.) GRAVEL Fine #4 to 3/4 in. (4.75 to 19 mm; 0.187 to 0.75 in.) Coarse 3/4 to 3 in. (19 to 76 mm) COBBLES 3 to 12 in. (76 to 305 mm) BOULDERS > 12 in. (305 mm) RELATIVE DENSITY I CONSISTENCY COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS N, SPT, RELATIVE N, SPT, RELATIVE BLOWS/FT. DENSITY BLOWS/FT, CONSISTENCY < 2 Very soft < 4 Very loose 4-10 Loose 2-4 Soft 10-30 Medium dense 4-8 Medium stiff 30-50 Dense 8 - 15 Stiff > 50 Very dense 15 - 30 Very stiff > 30 Hard Bentonite Cement Grout Bentonite Grout Bentonite Chips Silica Sand EWPerforated or .. Screened Casing Surface Cement Seal - Asphalt or Cap Slough 07 Inclinometer or Non -perforated Casing FLVibrating Wire Piezometer PERCENTAGES TERMS " Trace < 5% Few 5 to 10% Little Some Mostly 15 to 25% 30 to 45% 50 to 100% 'Gravel, sand, and fines estimated by mass. Other constituents, such as organics, cobbles, and boulders, estimated by volume. 2Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org. Packet Pg. 329 6.1.a UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS) (Modified From USAGE Tech Memo 3-357, ASTM D2487, and ASTM D2488) MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUPIGRAPHIC SYMBOL TYPICAL IDENTIFICATIONS Well-Graded Gravel; Well -Graded Gravel with Sand Gravel Poorly Graded Gravel; Poorly Graded Gravels (less Man 5% I++ r S] (more than 50% Gravel with Sand of coarse JM fraction retained on No. 4 sieve) Silty or Clayeyy Silt Gravel; Silt Gravel with Sand yGravel(ma•e Clayey Gravel; Clayey Gravel with COARSCRAW E- [bar: 12% l+nes) Sand SOILS (more than 50% retained on No. SW Well -Graded Sand; Well -Graded Sand 200 sieve) Sand with Gravel (less than 5% fines) SP Poorly Graded Sand; Poorly Graded Sands Sand with Gravel (50% or more of coarse fraction passers the) 4 Silly Silly or SM Silty Sand; Silty Sand with Gravel Clayey Sand (more than 12% tines) SC Clayey Sand; Clayey Sand with Gravel MIL Silt; Sill with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Silt Inorganic CL Lean Clay; Lean Clay with Sand or Silts and Clays (liquid less Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Lean Clay thann 5(]) .i Organic OL = Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or FINE-GRAINED SOILS — — — Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay (501yj or more passes1he No. 20U sieve) MH Elastic Silt; Elastic Silt With Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Elastic Silt Inorganic CH Fat Clay; with or Gravel; Fat ClGraveay Silts and Clays (liquid limit 50 or Sandy o Fat Clay more) Organic OH Organic Sill or Clay; Organic Silt or Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay HIGHLY - ORGANIC Primarily organic matter, dark in PTim Peat or other highly organic soils (see SOILS color, and organic odor ASTM D4427) NOTE: No. 4 size = 4.75 mm = 0.187 in.; No. 200 size = 0.075 mm = 0.003 in. NOTES i D 1 ra (Lby a h yphen, i_ SP--SM, Sand with Silt) are used for soils with between 5% and 120Io fines or when the ligui d Iimit jind plaii ci Ly i nd ex v l ues plot in the L-ML ama of khe ol astici y charms -ra htg 'cs shown an, the Iggs far these soil types atio n of the two graSP and SM . 2, Borderline sym o$s (symbols se rated y a fth i.e.. CLIML. Lean CIA y SP-SMISM. Sand i dicat that the soil oronerties are_close to the dgfining boundary between two arouos. M M CD r to C d t V rc t 3 O !Z L r- ra N m C Q ti N O 0 to 0 N Z J a. C N E L V rC Q Packet Pg. 330 6.1.a Poorly Graded Narrow range of grain sizes present or, within the range of grain sizes present, one or more sizes are missing (Gap Graded). Meets criteria in ASTM D2487, if tested. Well -Graded Full range and even distribution of grain sizes present. Meets criteria in ASTM D2487, if tested. CEMENTATIONTERMS' Weak Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight finger pressure. Moderate Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger pressure. Strong Will not crumble or break with finger r s r . APPROX. PLASITICITY DESCRIPTION VISUAL -MANUAL CRITERIA INDEX RANGE Nonplastic A 118-in. thread cannot be rolled < 4 at any water content. Low A thread can barely be rolled and 4 to 10 a lump cannot be formed when drier than the plastic limit. Medium A thread is easy to roll and not 10 to 20 much time is required to reach the plastic limit. The thread cannot be rerolled after reaching the plastic limit. A lump crumbles when drier than the plastic limit. High It takes considerable time rolling > 20 and kneading to reach the plastic limit. A thread can be rerolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. A lump can be formed without crumbling when drier than the plastic limit. Mottled Irregular patches of different colors. Bioturbated Soil disturbance or mixing by plants or animals. Diamict Nonsorted sediment; sand and gravel in silt and/or clay matrix. Cuttings Material brought to surface by drilling. Slough Material that caved from sides of borehole. Sheared Disturbed texture, mix of strengths. Angular Sharp edges and unpolished planar surfaces. Subangular Similar to angular, but with rounded edges. Subrounded Nearly planar sides with well-rounded edges. Rounded Smoothly cured sides with no edges. Flat Width/thickness ratio > 3. Elongated Length/width ratio > 3. ATD At Time of Drilling Diam. Diameter Elev. Elevation ft. Feet FeO Iron Oxide gal. Gallons Horiz. Horizontal HSA Hollow Stem Auger I.D. Inside Diameter in. Inches lbs. Pounds MgO Magnesium Oxide mm Millimeter MnO Manganese Oxide NA Not Applicable or Not Available NP Nonplastic O.D. Outside Diameter OW Observation Well pcf Pounds per Cubic Foot PID Photo -Ionization Detector PMT Pressuremeter Test ppm Parts per Million psi Pounds per Square Inch PVC Polyvinyl Chloride rpm Rotations per Minute SPT Standard Penetration Test USCS Unified Soil Classification System q Unconfined Compressive Strength VWP Vibrating Wire Piezometer Vert. Vertical WOH Weight of Hammer WOR Weight of Rods Wt. Weight Interbedded Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers at least 1/4-inch thick; singular: bed. Laminated Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers less than 1/4-inch thick; singular: lamination. Fissured Breaks along definite planes or fractures with little resistance. Slickensided Fracture planes appear polished or glossy; sometimes striated. Blocky Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular lumps that resist further breakdown. Lensed Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, such as small lenses of sand scattered through a mass of clay. Homogeneous Same color and appearance throughout. 'Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org. 2Adapted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org. Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report New Madrona K-8 Project Edmonds, Washington SOIL DESCRIPTION AND LOG KEY June 2016 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geolechnical and Environmental Consultants Packet Pg. 331 6.1.a Total Depth: 91.2 ft. Northing: Drilling Method: Sonic Core Hole Diam.. 10.5 in. Top Elevation: - 444.88 ft. Easting: Drilling Company: Holt Services Rod Diam.: NIA Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: Terrasonic Hammer Type: NIA Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments: SOIL DESCRIPTION ',:� m O% Fines (<0.075mm) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the o a n c c N .0 t %Water Content subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification a E E rn a lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries 0 U) cn cn a a)between material types, and the transition may be gradual. t 10 20 40 60 Hand -excavated to 1 foot. Standing water :•c•-[-:=a• •-;••�"M,}«} }_r.,•_;..}_F..,...,._:...,_._}_6_ _,..._: about 1 foot below IW-1 in " ` F =""` "'"t'"F" -}"' } [" "" ' `I'""' `„F"}-t•-F-: grade adjacent 2 f ; Gray -brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); _ y „��,••F_�; _ _;._[.___ .;... _;,. �« _;. moist; fine, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict. ...t' ..= "==L.F-;:- '-_:"__,...: _;_ =; _I._ 6 ........................................... .o `- „`"r r�-�=`= t•-r-�.F_,. °._r _:«f-F= --:,._`-::`_F=; Gray -brawn, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); wet fine, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to - - G=i= _ = r Fa--r- «r-F i --;•- -; coarse sand; diamict pockets. 10 -';:: `: «--.E----= (Qvat) c'=F:::t: '» - Perched groundwater at about f during==� := :='r==== =>•=_=::-^t•^-:: „ _::;:-; well installation on 4/21/2016. 12{-F„I=�-�•- r 14.0 14 Gray -brown to gray, Silt Sand with Gravel 9 Yr Y (SM); moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to ------- subangular fine to ravel; coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict. 16 - �.::..►..:i.« K--l_=F= F=i ..................:...:...:... . (Qvt) - Iron oxide staining from 14 to 18 feet. :...:..........................................:...... 18 ........ ......... GONTINUEO NEXT SHEET 0 20 40 60 LEGEND * Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout ® Bentonite Chips/Pellets ® Bentonite Grout Ground Water Level in Well Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report New Madrona K-8 Project NOTES Edmonds, Washington 1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions. 2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. 3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF SONIC CORE IW-1 June 2016 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. r FIG.�A,2(;rulectm,cal and Environmental Consultants Sheet 5 REV 2 - Log in Progress Packet Pg. 332 6.1.a Total Depth: 91.2 R. Northing: Drilling Method: Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 10.5 in. Top Elevation: - 444,88 ft. Easting: Drilling Company: Holt Services Rod Diam.: N/A Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: Terrasonic Hammer Type: N/A Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments: SOIL DESCRIPTION � ° ° O % Fines (<0.075mm) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the t ° � °' a a) rn � .— t ■ % Water Content subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification a E E U a lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries a) to cn 0 t7 between material types, and the transition may be gradual. 0 20 40 60 - Gray from 20 to 25 feet. • . j .....:........:...:._ .-.:--.: -� r- .}.r............... .......... _,._,...:._;... . 22 28 Gray to gray -brown, Silty Sand with Gravel and Cobbles (SM) to Silty Gravel with Sand (GM); F-FF iiE moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; few 30 subrounded cobbles; nonplastic fines; ml pockets. (Qvd/Qvt) Iron oxide stai ning from 31 to 32 et. 32 51 i r Gray -brown, Silty Sand with Gravel and 38.0 Cobbles (SM) to Silty Gravel with Sand and 4 Cobbles (GM); moist; fine, subrounded to q 3: 2, to .> r3 x. a LEGEND Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout ® Bentonite Chips/Pellets ® Bentonite Grout Ground Water Level in Well NOTES 1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions. 2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. 3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. ................. 0 20 Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report New Madrona K-8 Project Edmonds, Washington LOG OF SONIC CORE IW-1 June 2016 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-2 Ce:rvichrr cal and Environmental Consultants Sheet 2 of 5 REV 2 - Log in Progress Packet Pg. 333 6.1.a Total Depth: 91.2 ft. Northing: _ Drilling Method: Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 10.5 in. Top Elevation:--444.66ft. Easting: Drilling Company: H6tServices _ Rod Diam.- N/A Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: Terrasonic Hammer Type:_ N/A Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments: SOIL DESCRIPTION a O% Fines (<0.075mm) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the t o .0 2OL C C N 0 t %Water Content subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification n E E U—) n lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries In M � p a) between material types, and the transition may be gradual 0 20 40 60 subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; trace F- ;-[•-[-¢^F: : ;-[-: to few subrounded cobbles; nonplastic fines; _- _ �- zYF^I�FY}_r..3•-N^_ -- -- ?-F diamict ...: pockets. p ;.-F ;...E.It- 6..F«F- (Qva/Qvd) ": r�r ��.F_ ;._F.:_F..;..F•:._F_ ...,;..._ _:..... :.42 ..............:...:...:...:...:......F......:...:...:...:...:...:...:. ....._...................................:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:..... - Added water at 40 feet. _ _ ..___ ..r_, __.». _,._.._._.,- :... .. . .. . ............................ �-F-i- -..�'Y- d ----F«3..�f_;...}..t._r...F.a...r_I._--F_F_s• .. • . � .F_;.. F:.;._F,i_;.-F_;» � �.--..:..;...;._F__"F_F..;._F..F�.;...F_�...F..;._F„F 45.0 Gray -brown, Silty Sand (SM); moist to wet" fine, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict pockets. X_ _:_�___"k...._...__...�:�:��.-.�;.�;::�����;;:�,:�:::_:• (Qva/Qvd)...=F;:;i:: F 48 . '.;."..r F_6..?_{..}. �S �ti.__..j...j._p..}:{:.:F-F _'r•f�}. F'..rti,•-i'^F Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and "':.M-: �: - F•=- •L 3•• ?•i -b«c.;...F F_} ;. ;._F. Gravel (SP-SM) to Silty Sand with Gravel :;F-F"[ `-[•••F-`-rr•L-[••:-F-'•` -F"`"�'»F=`"':-`=E-` - -[•^:'-F .Y.......r«"��W�r�i,��"l._;._ ...E._ (SM); wet; fine to coarse, subrounded to ;.-;.';:=r:4=i;:;•.i..Y_ :r:�•:;=- '= :=i:•'= =tire subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; 50 'F ^F"F i^F•is^F k -i4�F-�-=�=F=F`F=i- :...:...:...:..........................:... .... ................................................. nonplastic fines; few silty sand pocket (Qva) ......... :...:...:...: ....... ;............................................. 52 ........ ....................... . .......................:..................:...:...:...:...:. ............... ;:. •. 54 :...:...:...:...:...............:... .. :...:...:.....:...:...:...:...:..:...:...::.:: ...:.. :..:...:_F_..;..;...;_F•s-:...{._F..;._;..F..�;...E_;._F..;._F_;._r_L_[._�, -1._F_F-{._F_I•.•r•-F'F'F»r„ i _[... -[•.�-F~;.;.�.:..�..�_1':':;::.`=::===-=,:::i:':= :. . Gray, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist; fine,56 58 r '•' subrounded to subangular ravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict. F-F-[..j...F-F-F-i•-F-I'-{.-;�.P-:_y..F»n»; ;::�:F-t_�i •:i- ---r•.:"-»:•i"'F-: ..:_F.. r......[ . :;F- -_ ;:-F (Qvd) _ :: : jj i;;: .,..:__ :.F CONTINUED NEXT SHE FT 0 20 40 60 LEGEND Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout ® Bentonite Chips/Pellets ® Bentonite Grout 3E Ground Water Level in Well Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report New Madrona K-8 Project NOTES Edmonds, Washington 1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions. 2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. 3. 11SCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF SONIC CORE IW-1 June 2016 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-2 [_ e��er�:n•cal and Environmental Consultants Sheet 3 of 5 REV 2 - Log in Progress Packet Pg. 334 6.1.a Total Depth: 91.2 ft. Northing: Drilling Method: Sonic Core Hole Diam,: 10.5 in. Top Elevation: — 444.88 ft. Easting: _ Drilling Company: Holt Services Rod Diam.: N/A Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: Terrasonic Hammer Type: N/A Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments: SOIL DESCRIPTION a O % Fines (<0.075mm) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the y o a 5-) 0 % Water Content subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification a E E a lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries 0 to (n ❑ tj between material types, and the transition may be gradual. 0 20 40 60 61.0 - - _ _„ F:}_F~}YF_3• •:!: -[•: Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP), Poorly Graded Sand (SP), and Poorly - ' [• ••[•• :•-3•-F-F-F-F F-e-3•^F-}- - -........ [ - = i•-'r-i--: Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM); moist; fine, :.; ""' 62 '•'•v ••=-r j . F_t_ . subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines. _N".-i_4� ' t'v' _ -,._;._ ' ; :: '`` (Qva) 4 -- ,. F..3.�r.---71.i.»i'"b»!'^i•`E»F-•F-}»c«F•. y.�.e»,i._ _ 6 68 ' .j F»�-[-F-F••�•r»�••[•-r.--[•-r+F- •,•-:-i ! .. - Pockets of silty sand at 69 to 69.5 feet. _ .•• ... 70 ...F_F_F«}_F-]._F..{._F_E.M_F_}-r»}»}«; ^d-"r^ ;H,Fr]•.;:g.i..F..;._-.. ...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:... - .l:..r.}�}:.p..v..,.. 1. » 72 :.: :....: 74 ...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...........:...:..................:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:.. .. ................................................................................:__...._..-_-.,..........-. 76 ...:..............:...: io N 78y.l., F I r { F - Layer of silty sand at 78 to 78.5 feet. 79.0 - 'j =�' i F'" -i . .:.. _Y-Y._ :j. F F-2:: _ :-=':::`_: - F-E•= Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand (SP) to .:•.• Poorl Graded Sand with Silt SP-SM •moist ;_ —,F_..F_F_F_,F-,._F_;...,...i._,..:,_{...F_;...;...FF_ CONTINUED NEXT SHEET 0 20 40 60 LEGEND Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout ® Bentonite Chips/Pellets ® Bentonite Grout Ground Water Level in Well Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report New Madrona K-8 Project Edmonds, Washington NOTES 1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions. 2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. 3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF SONIC CORE IW-1 June 2016 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-2 Geotm:hmcal and Environmental Consuftants Sheet 4 of 5 REV 2 - Log in Progress Packet Pg. 335 6.1.a Total Depth: 91.2 ft. Northing: Drilling Method: Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 10.5 in. Top Elevation: - 444.88 fl. Easting: Drilling Company: Holt Services Rod Diam.: N/A Vert. Datum: NA VD 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: Terrasonic Hammer Type: N/A Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments: SOIL DESCRIPTION O % Fines (<0.075mm) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the t o a N .(M _C ■ %Water Content subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification E m 2 a) lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries U) U) 0 � between material types, and the transition may be gradual. a) 0 20 40 60 fine to medium sand; trace subrounded gravel; ;:; «r F-r I•„ «F-•-c:;: F«:;•:F-F:=«r f;l_f-:_E;:=_.;--;:-E_r nonplastic fines. « ,•j-F- %.i - ,_;...E_ ..:..,._r_ ....._.....;..:..,E._� (Qva) :;«j »i j j.» %»o--r«3.« «;.: J.J. ;. - Last sample to 80 feet on 4/19/2016, cased - r- --h-E-F•F-F-=•-F••r-:•••,-E• :•-F-}..F-i•••F- -F-r to 70 feet. Dry to bottom of open hole (80 82 r_ _;. _: _ .._;._r_F ..:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:..........................:.............. feet) at start of day on 4/20/2016. ; ..; • ... .... _._._ ,__... r,...... --- ---'--• ..�.� _.._.....................................:............................... ._;,:..................................:... :...:...:...:...:...:..... .. :. .L..:...:...:...:...:... -86 -------------- - Trace cobbles below 87.5 feet. ____......__..__.._ _........ _},F-f.,E.}»F,},F.}»�..}»F•i-s•^F.F.; _....__..___.............:::::::::::::....:=r ..; .. :.. 88' «p»r«j._p.q-•;'- q: r_«�_E_}-._E..E_F.F-F_E»'�_j.«W - . «j._{. _«�.«}-j:,1•�i }- _'r.r-v..�E.3. »f�':2 a»F«;,» _t" _t_ 90 _}-r-r-E a_;_t_;.-r---E ~-F»F ...j.»;.-p«S•_F«i-»i.•�E-E«}Y--: _ �.. — .:F'i•« -F�_E -i�-r» 1.2 r-S�^i• � r-N�3-F-r«e_r-F�F_ -_},.�=F-i...;._...F-i -�I _ __.j._E _ i. .:� BOTTOM OF BORI COMPLETED 04/20/20 92 _..._....__�____..._ _...._.._......_....___..__..,.__..___..____.._..____. NOTE: Well installed 4/21/2016. tt on of sump cap was perforated w : - - r»;-o-- «�« "»r« :-E:;- small holes for drainage; _t..E_{;::F-I.:-F�•-F-r-�..j:��==_:::f'i,»j:.�;.,.. Yy---.:,._. ��_;::p»j.«�:»yam• approximately 1 inch of sediment 94 ...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:..:....:..:..:......E...;...:...;...:......,...;...,...;.......,.............. :...:......:...:...:...:..........................:...:.............................. accumulated in the sump during :...:...:...:.......:...:..:..........:...............:...:...:...:..............................:........... ...........................:.........................................................................:............. ......... 4/25/2016 injection test, plugging the ......... ......... drain holes. ...................................:..........:.............................................................:..... :...:...:...:...:..........................:...........:...:...:...:......:.......................:......... 96 - E...:...:.......:...:...:...:........ ............................... :..................:...:...:...:...:...:...:. 0 20 40 60 LEGEND * Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter 2 Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout ® Bentonite Chips/Pellets ® Bentonite Grout Ground Water Level in Well Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report New Madrona K-8 Project NOTES Edmonds, Washington 1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions. 2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. 3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF SONIC CORE IW-1 June 2016 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-2 6"tl , ir,lcal and Environmental Consultants Sheet 5 of 5 REV 2 - Log in Progress Packet Pg. 336 6.1.a Total Depth: 185.5 ft. Northing: Drilling Method: Sonic Core Hole Diam.: B in. Top Elevation: - 445.07 ft. Easting: Drilling Company: Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: N/A Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: Terrasonic Hammer Type: N/A Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft. SOIL DESCRIPTION zr� o a c c � O % Fines (<0.075mm) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the _C E a .� r 2 %Water Content subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification a E a lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries a) cA 0 0 between material types, and the transition may be gradual. 0 20 40 50 Hand -excavated to 2 feet. Standing water r > about 1 foot below OW-1 grade in adjacent p Swale. r F ' . - - - X? 7-777 ....... Gray -brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); • .. ....-. . moist to wet; fine to coarse, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; - -_ - - nonplastic fines; diamict pockets; few poorly graded sand pockets. :. ,...._..; :-..:: -: = :-E == ,w:_.'-: 4 - --- _ .-r - - Wet pocket of poorly graded, fine to medium - - - `_ ': ""`:: `.... .......... sand sand with silt at 5.5 feet. 6 - - -3:: • • • • • • • • • - }:- - 8 -- .:,.:.:.:.:.:,.:.:. - ...:..:.... .... ...... - Wet below about 8.5 feet. 10.0 10 Gray -brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to ... subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; - - - =-�: r-. _-: -: -: ----:..:.. = - _.....::: - - - -- -- nonplasticfines; diamict. ;:.•? :..._ :..;_:-:-:_:..;__;_:_;_:._ ___ .. _:..,!Y_._Y::^.::.:::: 14- - - -- -- t. _7 - - CONTINUED NEXT SHEET 0 20 40 60 LEGEND " Sample Not Recovered = Well Screen and Sand Filter Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout ® Bentonite Chips/Pellets ® Bentonite Grout 9 Ground Water Level ATD Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report _T Ground Water Level in Well New Madrona K-8 Project NOTES Edmonds, Washington 1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions. 2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. 3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1 June 2016 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-3 Ceu'euli foal and Environmental Consultants Sheet 1 of 13 REV 2 - Log in Progress Packet Pg. 337 6.1.a Total Depth: 185.5 ft. Northing: Drilling Method: Core Hole Diam.: 6 in. Top Elevation:—445,07a, Easting: Drilling Company: Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: N/A Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: Terrasonic Hammer Type: N/A Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft. SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 O % Fines (<0.075mm) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the r o .0 2 .� t %Water Content subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification E m a- lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries U) U) ❑ between material types, and the transition may be gradual. ❑ ❑ 0 20 40 60 -- - -' - 16 __ _ .. . ......... .r. _ _-- - _-: 7. w, - - - - - ,.:,-.-...,,._-:...-r - --' Gray, Silty Sand with Gravel and Cobbles (SM) to Silty Gravel with Sand and Cobbles ...........:.:..:_ ; :- •.:... - -.-:.• - - _. -=-.. -. . (GM); moist; trace to few subrounded cobbles; 3.2 . - — - F _ _. . ._'_ fine to coarse, subrounded to subangular ravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict. �:i:::::: (Qvtj . - - - - - -_ ...:..:...:�_:..:: - - Bottom of temporary 7-inch casing set at 2<�;, 22 t " '-' '-' - - -- feet. ::. - _ 24 , -:.::--- - - - Gray -brown to gray below 25 feet. . - - - - - - 26 _ t� - - - - - ». - - - C �% - - ------ �> - - -- - - - --r.» -- c> 28 . . . «r-: " - - > -- - - r' - ---- -;. - - - - �> CONTMED NEXT SHEET 0 20 40 6p LEGEND Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout ® Bentonite Chips/Pellets ® Bentonite Grout _V Ground Water Level ATD Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report T Ground Water Level in Well New Madrona K-8 Project NOTES Edmonds, Washington 1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions. 2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. 3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1 June 2016 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. A•3 Glao,edkn cal and Environmental Consuitants Sheet 2 of 13 REV 2 - Log in Progress Packet Pg. 338 6.1.a Total Depth: 185.5 ft. Northing: Drilling Method: Sonic Core _- Hole Diam.: 6 in. Top Elevation:—445-07ft- Easting: Drilling Company: Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: N/A Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: Terrasonic Hammer Type: N/A Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 7-in. hole from 0 to 20 R. SOIL DESCRIPTION a= rn r_ C O % Fines (<0.075mm) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the t .0 a' a a> rn .- t • % Water Content subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification a E E _ U) a lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries tj cn l] a)between material types, and the transition may be gradual. ❑ 20 40 60 . .. l.. ..l _ .. _ - - - -7. 32 f - - - — i - - „r,. - - - _ r.. :i:» ..:=...... 34 36 - - . - -- :t . ....... . - - . ;)3 ;-; Gray-brown, Silty Sand with Gravel M} -; .. -. ..... -.._:: - Silty Gravel with Sand (GM); moist; fin o - coarse, subrounded to subangulargravel; 'ne 40 to coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict. -- - Drilled tight and stick from 40 to 50 feet. - -- - '-�~ 42 .. i4. - - - - Y. CONTINUE NEXT SHEET 0 �0 40 66 LEGEND * Sample Not Recovered 177-1-1 Well Screen and Sand Filter 2 Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout ® Bentonite ChipslPellets ® Bentonite Grout SZ Ground Water Level ATD Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report -T Ground Water Level in Well New Madrona K-8 Project NOTES Edmonds, Washington 1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions. 2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. 3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1 June 2016 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-3 GeoWhnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 3 of 13 REV 2 - Log in Progress Packet Pg. 339 6.1.a Total Depth: 185,511. Northing: Drilling Method: Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 6 in. Top Elevation: - 445.07 ff. Easting: Drilling Company: Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: NIA Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station: -_ Drill Rig Equipment: Terrasonic Hammer Type: NIA Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 7-in. hole from O to 20 ft. SOIL DESCRIPTION 'H o C C 4� O % Fines (<0.075mm) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the t .0 aNi a .� t %Water Content subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification 5. E m lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries ❑ to � U) C)❑ between material types, and the transition may be gradual. p 20 40 60 46 - -. . . - Stopped on 4/4/2016 after sampling to 50 - -- -; - -r - '- feet. Added water during cieanout run from - -- - ' - 40 to 50 feet, prior to sample run 7. 50.0 50 �_ ; .. :: ::-:' :' :: _;..:_:. Gray -brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM) to Silty Gravel with Sand (GM); moist to wet; fine to coarse, subrounded to suban ular ravel; '` ry"..'-........-`'. '. _ . . fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict _ _ _ __ _ ' pockets. 52 ._.. .. ;.. (Qva/Qvd) - - . � ^� - Moist below 53 feet. - - :-------= -- 54- r - - - _ _ 55.5 Gray, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to subangular gravel; 56 :. , ......... fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict pockets; easier drilling than above. (Qvd/Qva) - - - - - 58------ _ ----- - -- - .-..........r -- --- - _ CONTI NUED NEXT SHEET 0 20 40 60 LEGEND Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout ® Bentonite Chips/Pellets ® Bentonite Grout SZ Ground Water Level ATD Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report. Ground Water Level in Well New Madrona K-8 Project NOTES Edmonds, Washington 1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions. 2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. 3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1 June 2016 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-3 Geoterhnlcal and Environmental Consultants Sheet 4 of 13 REV 2 - Log in Progress Packet Pg. 340 6.1.a Total Depth: 785.8 ft. Northing: _ Drilling Method: Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 6 in. Top Elevation: — 445-0717, Easting: Drilling Company: Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: N/A Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station: .� Drill Rig Equipment: Terrasonic Hammer Type: N/A Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 7-in. hole from 0 to 20 R. SOIL DESCRIPTION cl:� Cn 2 O % Fines (<0.075mm) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the t .0 •N s %Water Content subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification a T E a) n lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries ) t (n to Clbetween material types, and the transition may be gradual. 10 70 40 60 Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM); moist; <15% fine to coarse, - -- - subrounded to subangular ravel; fine to medium sand; nonplastic fines. ' ___: __.._...._.._ _ _.......... _ _.. _.......... _ _.... _..... _ (Qva) 62 - :._:..:.;...:_;._:..:-: i ::.__:.. _:._.:.:.. _ _ : _ =_: - Layer of poorly graded gravel with sand from 62.1 to 62.5 feet. :: •. :._ - .. ...-_.. .:..:_::: _:.. ,.,._ - Layer of silty sand with gravel from 62.5 to ^ -- 63 feet. {?': 64 65.0 5 - E - Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel and Cobbles (SP); moist; trace subrounded _..__...__.,._....__............. ........ ....._,............ cobbles; fine to coarse, subrounded to 66 subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; trace ' ' ' ' nonplastic fines. (Qva) - . - _ - - . - - - - - - -_ --- _- 68 - - - 5 f: ------------ .. .. =°-""-""" . " _ ... . _' "f' f Gray-brown, Poorly Graded San S to Silty Sand (SM); moist; <15% fine, subr nd to " " " " ` subangular gravel; fine to coarse san - - nonplastic fines; few diamict pockets. 70.0 70 {Cava) o Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt Sand, and Cobbles (GP -GM); moist; trace ..:...:................. _........._....... _:._:...:._:_._:._r._:..�.:.:.:.:_:_:.. .' • subangular cobbles; fine to coarse, ° - -- - - - subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to a 72 l coarse sand; nonplastic fines. 72.5 ;-"" �;-^"=-:� """--;------ "y -- ,...,,_.. ............... Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt = """`"`="' "' "" "}}•" (SP-SM); moist; trace fine, subrounded to 73.5 -~~ -_- - --- ~ - - subangular gravel; fine to medium sand; 74 - - nonplastic fines. CONTINUED NEXT SHEET 0 20 40 60 LEGEND Sample Not Recovered ( Well Screen and Sand Filter Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout ® Bentonite Chips/Pellets ® Bentonite Grout -V Ground Water Level ATD Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report T Ground Water Level in Well New Madrona K-8 Project NOTES Edmonds, Washington 1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions. 2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. 3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1 June 2016 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-3 Geolechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 5 of 13 REV 2 - Log in Progress Packet Pg. 341 6.1.a Total Depth: 185.5 R. Northing: Drilling Method: Sonic. Core Hole Diam.: 6 in. Top Elevation: - 445.07 ft. Easting: Drilling Company: Holt Services Inc. _ - Rod Diam.. N/A Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: Terrasonic Hammer Type: N/A Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 7-in. hole from 0 to 20 R. SOIL DESCRIPTION o En a) O % Fines (<0.075mm) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the .0 E a .� t %Water Content subsurface materials and drilling methods- The stratification a E a- a lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries t j M U) ❑ between material types, and the transition may be gradual. 0 20 40 60 Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and - S-::-: = :-::-:•-' - - - - Gravel (SP-SM) to Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to 76 subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; - nonplastic fines. I (Qva) - Hard drilling 77 to 80 feet. -- - . . ' ' ' ' ' - Added water during cleanout run at 70 to 80 - --"''--'•_-, feet, prior to sample run 10. Gray -brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM) to 80.0 St] - Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel (SP-SM); moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to-:-_ W - --_ subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; - �' ..N r ' ' ' ' ' nonplastic fines. 82 _ - - - - --r-=--s-- - -: - (Qva) 64 .4 - o-- . - - - - 86 }. 86.7 _ _ ""'"`='"'_`::'_ :':'.-_-:':-: _: Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP) to Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP); moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to " subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines. (Qva)- - Added water during cleanout run from 80 to - - - - 90 feet, prior t e , p o o sample run 11. - "-�=�.:_ - - - - CONTINUED NEXT SHEET 0 20 40 60 LEGEND * Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout ® Bentonite Chips/Pellets ® Bentonite Grout Ground Water Level ATD Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report Ground Water Level in Well New Madrona K-8 Project NOTES Edmonds, Washington 1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions. 2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. 3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1 June 2016 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. A-3 Geelechnlcal and Environmental Consultants Sheet 6 of 13 REV 2 - Log in Progress Packet Pg. 342 6.1.a Total Depth: 185.5 R. Northing: Drilling Method: Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 6 in. Top Elevation: — 445,07 ft. Easting: Drilling Company: Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: N/A Vert. Datum: NA VD 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: Terrasonic Hammer Type: N/A Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft. SOIL DESCRIPTION z o '20m � 5 O% Fines (<0.075mm) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the t � a � .— t Fn _ • /o Water Content subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification sz �E• E n lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries a) U) (q ❑ between material types, and the transition may be gradual, 0 20 40 60 Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand (SP); moist; 91'8 92 - <15% fine to coarse, subrounded to::-::-: subangular gravel; fine to medium sand; trace nonplastic fines. - (Qva} 93.5 :. _.._ .............._.._.._...._...._.... _ Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, 94 • • • • . . • • • . • Gravel, and Cobbles (SP-SM) to Silty Sand with Gravel and Cobbles (SM); moist; trace _" "= ;::" YY subangular cobbles; fine to coarse, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to �,.:..,-_. ^. ' „ _; .,:..I•;-.. coarse sand; nonplastic fines. 9 96 ...._:' - Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel -' --' -' » " (SP); moist; fine subrounded to subangular - :._ ...:_:...:_:. ..:...:...:...:...... gravel; fine to coarse sand; trace nonpl .._......................................... ' fines. 98 :: : (ova) - - j - - - _ Gray -brown, Silty Sand with Grave n Cobbles (SM); moist; trace subrounde - "" 7' ""'""""""""' "" cobbles; fine to coarse, subrounded to 100.0 : 100 - - " ` " " - "-"- _" .... ' - - :r- - "=" " " `"' "!:="" subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines. G..;_;_:._ _:,..:..:-...... (Qva) - - Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and - - Gravel (SP-SM) to Poorly Graded Sand (SP); 102 moist; fine subrounded to subangular gravel; = µ•" =- - ... -. . =• •- =- fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines. _" - - -=- --- -; __ ......_..... (Qva) .; .............._:.,� . , .. , ..._ . _ ._... s�--__.....:.___:._�.:_.. - Layer of silty sand from 101 to 101.3 feet. 104 CONTINUE❑ NEKF SHEET Q 20 40 60 LEGEND Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout ® Bentonite Chips/Pellets ® Bentonite Grout * Ground Water Level ATD Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report * Ground Water Level in Well New Madrona K-8 Project NOTES Edmonds, Washington 1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions. 2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. 3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1 June 2016 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-3 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 7 of 13 REV 2 - Log in Progress Packet Pg. 343 6.1.a Total Depth: 185.51t. Northing: Drilling Method: Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 6 in. Top Elevation: -- 445.07 ft. Easting: _ Drilling Company: Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: NIA Vert. Datum: NA VD 88 .. Station: Drill Rig Equipment: Terrasonic Hammer Type: NIA Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 7-in. hole from 0 to 20 R. SOIL DESCRIPTION $ ° rn ° ° O % Fines (Q1.075mm) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the �a � a � .� � ■ % Water Content subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification E > E ° ai a ) lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries (D 0 U) to between material types, and the transition may be gradual. t} 20 40 60 Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel " '' .--...-._.-.-_... . ' (SP) to Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel (SP-SM); moist; fine to coarse, 106 subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines. ----:••• --••-,•-----•••, ..,...•........•:•__.•. (Qva) - ---"• ••-_.:_..__..__...._......_....___...___.--...__.,...-.--•_•-.-_.. Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel (SP-SM) to Silty Sand (SM); moist; few _ _ fine to coarse, subrounded to subangular — - gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines. - Added water during cleanout run from 100 to 11 110 feet and during extraction of sample run - - -- - -- '- -' '- -- ----Y - -- 13. - Trace gravel from 111 to 112.5 feet.j. 112 112. _ _ - _ __ Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP-SM) to Silty Sand with G vet __ ............ - (SM); moist; fine to coarse, subro d to "__" . ' subangular gravel; fine to coarse nd, 114 __ -} _ �' '- -~ ..... • • • • • - • • • • • _ _ _ nonplastic fines; few silty sand pock •;• ; (Qva) M _ - ---- - _ 116 116 - - - - - . - - - . •so CONTINUED NEXT SHEET 0 20 .40 LEGEND * Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout ® Bentonite Chips/Pellets ® Bentonite Grout SZ Ground Water Level ATD Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report Ground Water Level in Well New Madrona K-8 Project NOTES Edmonds, Washington 1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions. 2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. 3, USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1 June 2016 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-3 Geotedhnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 8 of 13 REV 2 - Log in Progress Packet Pg. 344 6.1.a Total Depth: 185.5 R. Northing. _ Drilling Method: Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 6 in. Top Elevation: - 445.07 R. Easting: Drilling Company: Holt Services Inc. - Rod Diam.: N/A Vert. Datum: NAVE) 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: Terrasonic Hammer Type. N/A Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft. SOIL DESCRIPTION *� o � c c O % Fines (<0.075mm) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the w .0 a .� % Water Content subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification a T E a lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries t7 fn to to 0 between material types, and the transition may be gradual. 0 20 40 60 - Tried adding second 10-foot core barrel so . .: •.._ • -� _ could sample and cleanout at same time.----------- Coringhard and slow. Added water during g - _.: extraction of sample run 14. :l ,w " - -= — - -�:::-: 122.0 122 Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and - - j Gravel (SP-SM); moist; fine to coarse, _ subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to 123.0 ; t-- - --:: ::" 2 - medium sand; nonplastic fines. _ = f- = .-= - .. ..-.�....... . .... ..:._:._ .... (Qva) ��..:.:..._ ^ 124 - Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM) to Poorly Graded Sand (SP); moist;^_T_-" trace to few fine, subrounded to subangular `�-__-__ gravel; fine to medium sand; nonplasticfines; _ ""'" .. " few silty sand pockets from 123 to 125 feet. 126 - - .. .....ter= _ (Qva). •. 128 ........ ......... - Added water during cleanout run m 0 to130 feet feet and during extraction of sa le ~ -_ - -...._ :_." :-= 15. 130.0 130 :,.._ :.,._;..:._...._. -' ,,..,,. Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM) to Silty Sand (SM); moist; trace ......:............... _ subangular, fine gravel; fine to medium sand; :;:... t :"__;...:..:__:.:._:,.._..:..::_::.::._:._:.. nonplasticfines; few silty sand clasts. -- _ ----L (Qva) 132 ::::::.:. . ::::: - ----------------- Last sample on 4/5/2016 was to 140 feet, casing at 130 feet. Possible perched water - measured at 132.5 feet at start of day on Y-G_ - ••---••--'•-• 4/6/2016 . had caved to 133.5 feet ( ) 134 - - - .. 134.3 MR., CONTINUED NExfSHEET 0 20 40 60 LEGEND * Sample Not Recovered ( Well Screen and Sand Filter 2 Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout Bentonite Chips/Pellets ® Bentonite Grout Ground Water Level ATD Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report Ground Water Level in Well New Madrona K-8 Project _NOTES Edmonds, Washington 1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions. 2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. 3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1 June 2016 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-3 Geolechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 9 of 13 REV 2 - Log in Progress Packet Pg. 345 6.1.a Total Depth: 185.5 ft. Northing: Drilling Method: Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 6 in. Top Elevation: — 445,07 ft. Easting: Drilling Company: Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: N/A Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: Terrasonic Hammer Type: N/A Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft. SOIL DESCRIPTION ur O % Fines (<0.075mm) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the a .� r 0 % Water Content subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification is E E a- a lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries � ❑ Cl) m to U) ❑ m ❑ between material types, and the transition may be gradual. ❑ 20 40 60 Gray -brown, Silty Sand (SM); wet; trace fine, ' ' ' ' ' subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to - - --- - coarse sand; nonplastic fines; slight diamict 136 . • • .. . r. texture. 136.5 (Qvaj -- - ; _ - - -. - - _ _ " : ---;- -', Gray -brown, Silty Sand (SM) to Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM); moist; trace fine, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to : ' :.. „ t • -, ;„»_;,•__•.;•,.,•:•,:•••»_•.••_;•••••,;., coarse sand; nonplastic fines; few silty sand 138.5 - ' " - - 1. clasts. - .........= :....::::. {ova} .... - - - —r - Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM) to Poorly Graded Sand (SP); trace ` 14 :. --••----- - :•-:-:•-:..•......:•.:...: fine, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to - F'~ medium sand; nonplastic fines. - - -- - - (Qva) 142 _ 1 .0 Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand w' S' Gravel SP-SM moist fine to co a ( ), , �~�— - - subrounded to subangular gravel; e t :: 144 . • • • • • ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' coarse sand; nonplastic fines. _ Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM); moist; fine to medium sand; . ....... _......... nonplastic fines. 146 (Qva)-------------- •..... ............. _...... _....... 146.9 -- -- r - -- -'- _ - Gray -brown, Silty Sand (SM); moist fine sand; nonplastic fines. (Qva) 148.0 148 - -- - .. _... _ ................................... ......:...:..:..:...:...: Gray -brown to gray, Silty Sand with Gravel . (SM); moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to _i :. .. - . . . .:M--:...:_:_:___:._:. subangular ravel; fine to coarse sand; 9 9 X. --- "'- "- "� `„ „ - „ --__ : ^ -. • . . _t_ - nonplastic fines. ......... - �60 CONTINUED NEXT SHEET 0 20 40. LEGEND * Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout ® Bentonite Chips/Pellets ® Bentonite Grout SZ Ground Water Level ATD Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report 1T Ground Water Level in Well New Madrona K-8 Project NOTES Edmonds, Washington 1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions. 2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. 3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1 June 2016 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-3 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 10 of 13 REV 2 - Log in Progress Packet Pg. 346 6.1.a Total Depth: 185.5 ft. Northing: Drilling Method: Sonic Core Hole Diam.. 6 in. Top Elevation: -- 445.07 tf. Easting: Drilling Company: Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: N/A Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: Terrasonic Hammer Type: N/A Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft. SOIL DESCRIPTION *:i o O % Fines (<0.075mm) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the = E a .� t %Water Content subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification n E V y a lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries to M t4 0 a) between material types, and the transition may be gradual. 0 20 40 60 - Increased fines may be artifact of hard ' drilling action. Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel (SP-SM) to Poorly Graded Sand with " -"""-" " _':�_ """'r" "'"-. Gravel (SP); moist; fine subrounded to 151.8 ' 152 -:• ;•.•:•. =-=-- '•_:._�,:;...:._ __.;...:._ _ ..:._i._:.__ :._::. _:...:._:._ . subangular gravel; fine to medium sand; .- nonplastic fines. Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt - - =- - -... =.=. = ------ (SP-SM) to Poorly Graded Sand (SP); moist; 154 -; „' trace to few fine, subrounded to subangular t_ -�- - - - - =- = -- -= =- gravel; fine to medium sand; nonplastic fines; - - •, - - -- - few silty sand pockets. —r - - • - - -=- (Qva) . - - - - 156 Gray to gray -brown, Silty Sand with Gravel -- --_-- -�_ --'- --- (SM); moist; fine to coarse, subrounded------------ _ subangular gravel; fine to coarse San 158 ' ; nonplastic fines; increased fines -R------- --- -=------- artifact of hard drilling action. - - �- -- - - (Qva) 711 ...........-....._... - ' - Increased fines may be artifact of ha ' ' _.._.._ _..__.._.............. _.............. drilling action. 160.0 ' 160 Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand (SP) to .T Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM); moist; :i':-=- r _ _ fine to medium sand; trace nonplastic fines. _ - - (Qva) - ---- _ - - - - Layers and seams of silty sand at 162 to W 162 :-;-.-, _ .. ' ' ' ' ' • . ' ' k- 162.5, 163 feet, and 164.7 to 165 feet. -- - — r -=_�:X�.w-� - r= �: -: -: :i- - y 164 ....... _............_......._ .y CONTINUED NEXT SHEET () 20 40 60 LEGEND * Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout ® Bentonite Chips/Pellets ® Bentonite Grout SZ Ground Water Level ATD Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report _T Ground Water Level in Well New Madrona K-8 Project NOTES Edmonds, Washington 1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions. 2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. 3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1 June 2016 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-3 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 11 of 13 REV 2 - Log in Progress Packet Pg. 347 6.1.a Total Depth: 185.5 ft. Northing Drilling Method: Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 6 in. Top Elevation: -- 445,07 ft. Easting: Drilling Company: Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: N/A Vert. Datum: .. NAVD 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: Terrasonic Hammer Type: N/A Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 7-in. hole from 0 fo 20 ft. SOIL DESCRIPTION 'C� o m O % Fines (<0.075mm) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the Z a a N .� t % Water Content subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification a E E iu a lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries 0 U) (n fn p � between material types, and the transition may be gradual. 0 20 40 60 Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt U (SP-SM) to Poorly Graded Sand (SP) ; moist to wet; trace fine, subrounded to subangular 166 gravel; fine to medium sand; nonplastic fines. SZ (Qva) - - - .. - . -- . 0 - Layer of silty, fine sand from 167.3 to 167.7 2 feet. - -t - - O - Layer of poorly graded sand with silt and {f' gravel from 169 to 169.5 feet. - ' ' ' '-._ ' 17 Gray -brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); wet; 170.5 - -- -- }_ - fine to coarse, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines. _ _ - ' ' "' "'" ""'"""r""-_ "'....-. . (Qva) -- ...172 -""'- ""'""="':'_"' "-":"" _ - Diamict layer of silty sand with gravel at 172 1 4 ' feet. i - Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand w 5 ;. _ _:. �_:.__......_........:..... _.... :...:._:..._..:...:.....:...:._....:.. (SP-SM) to Poorly Graded Sand P)• t; =- --•-'•-= •--- -:- - <15% fine, subrounded to subang r g vet; ;,: " 174 :_:..:.._:.:... - - :._I•-._-, .... ...... . _ fine to medium sand; nonplastic fines. (Qva) - - Pockets of silt sand with ravel from 17 = = = ...... ' to 175 feet. :E7 - - 176 - Seam of silty sand with gravel at 176.3 feet. 177.0 ' - - Brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and ^^ Gravel (SP-SM) to Silty Sand with Gravel- -»»:~_M - •- - (SM); wet; fine to coarse, subrounded to 178 " .. subangular gravel; fine to medium sand; - nonplastic fines; trace organics and mica. ` -- - - - - -= ' (Qva) 179.0 - .::a _:_ CONTiNuEDNEXrSAE ET 0 20 40 60 LEGEND * Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter 0 Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout ® Bentonite Chips/Pellets ® Bentonite Grout SZ Ground Water Level ATD Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report Y Ground Water Level in Well New Madrona K-8 Project NOTES Edmonds, Washington 1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions. 2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. 3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1 June 2016 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-3 Ovoiechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 12 of 13 REV 2 - Log in Progress Packet Pg. 348 6.1.a Total Depth: 185.5 R. Northing: Drilling Method: Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 6 in. Top Elevation: - 445,07 ft. Easting: Drilling Company: Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: NIA Vert. Datum: NA VD 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: Terrasonic Hammer Type: NIA Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft. SOIL DESCRIPTION O % Fines (<0.075mm) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the � �° a a� rn � .� ■ % Water Content subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification a E a lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries to 0 tj between material types, and the transition may be gradual. 0 20 40 60 was to 179 feet on 4/6/016,.5 feet. Caved to 168 feet by/7/2016; water level 166.5 feet. L - .- - during cleanout run prior to = -:-:_...........1. 182 Brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and of '' Gravel (SP SM), Poorly Graded Sand (SP), ;:.. _ _ - "------ --- and Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP); - „•- •=_;,:...:_...__ _:_ ------- wet; fine to coarse, rounded to subangular ..... _ _ gravel; fine to coarse sand; trace to few 84 - -' - - ' nonplastic fines. (Ova) -r- - "~„�~"; ~~": „^~Y--- - Heaved 10 feet during retrieval of sample run 21. Cased to 185 feet and added water 185.5 . .- . -.- . ... to wash out heave to 185.5 feet, prior to well 186 installation. BOTTOM OF BORING - - - COMPLETED 4/7/2016 - --''' ' " NOTE: Well installed on 4/7/2016. - - - -- - - 188 l 41. 190 _ is - - _;._ 192 - - .. 77 _a_ 194 - - ._- - -- - 0 20 40 60 LEGEND * Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter 0 Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout ® Bentonite Chips/Pellets ® Bentonite Grout SZ Ground Water Level ATD Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report -T Ground Water Level in Well New Madrona K-8 Project NOTES Edmonds, Washington 1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions. 2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary. 3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1 June 2016 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-3 GeotechnIcal and Environmental Consultants Sheet 13 of 13 REV 2 - Log in Progress Packet Pg. 349 6.1.a SHANNON WILSON, INC. 21-1-22082-003 C M T N C t V t 3 0 0. CD L N m C Q ti N O O T 0 N Z J IL c m E 0 Q Packet Pg. 350 6.1.a SHANNON WILSON, INC. APPENDIX B LABORATORY SOIL TESTING AND ANALYSES TABLE OF CONTENTS 0 E w u Page Q. 13.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................... .........:...........................................B-1 0 0 B.2 VISUAL CLASSIFICATION ..... B-1 �a c 13.3 WATER CONTENT DETERMINATION ..... ........................................................B-1 0 L B.4 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS ................................. ..... ....... ....B-1 M 13.5 REFERENCES r I B-1 Grain Size Distributio —.Boring OW-1 (2 sheets) 21-1-22082-003-RI-AB.docx/wp/]kn 21-1-22082-003 Packet Pg. 351 6.1.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. APPENDIX B LABORATORY SOIL TESTING AND ANALYSES B.1 INTRODUCTION Our field and laboratory personnel performed geotechnical testing on selected samples retrieved from the Project borings. The purpose of the testing was to evaluate index and engineering properties of the Project subsurface soils. Laboratory test;hRcluded visual classifications, water content determinations, and grain size (sieve) Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). B.2 VISUAL CLASSIFICATION Selected soil samples were classified using is shown in Figure A-1 (Appendix A). Cla based on ASTM International (ASTM) for Engineering Purposes-(A—STM <�2 4). based on ASTM D24,&8, Stanndard Re_ Manual Procedure). T�e ind vidu'a sam exploration logs, presented in 'en ' .c. A. B.3 WATER CONTENT Water content was determined on the soils according to the u mafy �of tnis-Iissitication system :a ples ie ted in the laboratory was st'Met"hod for Classification of Soil pleslnot't�ssed 'n .. a laboratory were classified d Prtice fv Description of Soils (Visual- a'ss cations ave been incorporated into the 'ION ples in accordance with ASTM D2216, Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock. The water content is shown graphically on the boring logs in Appendix A. BA GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS The grain size distribution of selected samples was determined in accordance with ASTM D422, Standard Test Method for Particle -Size Analysis of Soils. Figure B-1 presents a tabulated summary for each grain size distribution plot, including sample description, percentage of fines passing the No. 200 sieve, and natural water content. Table B-1 presents grain size -based estimated hydraulic conductivity (K) values for selected soil samples, based on the Hazen (1893) approach. The results of these K estimates indicate that the K value for the one tested till -like deposits (Qvd) sample was relatively low (less than 0.01 foot per day [foot/day], or 4.4 x 10-6 feet/minute). The K estimates for the seven Vashon advance 21-1-22082-003-RI-AB.docx/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003 B-1 Packet Pg. 352 6.1.a SHANNON WILSON, INC. outwash (Qva) samples ranged from 0.2 to 82 feet/day (1.3 x 10-4 to 5.7 x 10-2 feet/minute), which is a variation of more than two orders of magnitude. The geomean K value of the seven tested Qva samples is 10 feet/day. B.5 REFERENCES ASTM International (ASTM), 2014, Annual book of standards, construction, v. 4.08, soil and rock (I): D420 — D5876: West Conshohocken, Penn., ASTM International, 1 v. Hazen, A., 1893, Some physical properties of sands and Health, 24th An 21-1-22082-003-R1-AB.docx/wp/Ikn i : Massachusetts State Board of 21-1-22082-003 Packet Pg. 353 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. TABLE B-1 SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYSES Boring Number Depth (feet) Drilling Method Sieve Results (ASTM Percent Passing) Sieve Results (percent finer, mm) -W Was 10% size estimated? Approximate Hydraulic Conductivity, K (Hazen, 1893) USCS Group Svmhol Vadose Zone Treatment Ca acitva Interpreted Geologic Unit Tested Gravel % Sand % Fines % 50% 10%, feet/day cm/sec feet/min OW-1 557 Sonic Core 22 56 22 0.95 CL0015 Yes 0.0064 2.3E-06 4.4E-06 SM Medium vd OW-1 63.5 Sonic Core 7 84 9.5 0.33 0.080,, 18 6.4E-03 1.3E-02 SP-SM Medium Qva OW-1 87.5 Sonic Core 34 61 4-5 1. 0. 7 82 2.9E-02 5.7E-02 SP Low Qva OW-1 108 Sonic Core 7 74 19 0.33/ 0.02�,,_ Yes 1.3 4.4E-04 8.7E-04 SM Medium Qva OW-1 125 Sonic Core 2 90 8.1 0.3Q/ )0.088 22 7.7E-03 1.5E-02 SP-SM Low Qva OW-1 135 Sonic Core 4 70 26 6,28 4 .0080 Yes 0,18 6.4E-05 1.3E-04 SM Medium Qva OW-1 153 Sonic Core 4 88 8.0 0.3 0.092 24 8.5E-03 1.7E-02 SP-SM Low Qva OW-1 182 Sonic Core 7 88 - 5.1 ` 0.3� 0,2 Yes 64 2.3E-02 4.4E-02 SP-SM Below water table Qva Geomean of Qva Samples 10 3.6E-03 7.1E-03 Notes: \ v Treatment capacity classification from Table 5.2: Vadose Zone TmaRmenECipac4ly,i GuCww pr Wells that Manage Stormwater (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2006), Hazen, A., 1893, Some physical properties of sands and gravels: M uselta Slated 0l� th, 24th Annual Report. ASTM = ASTM international cm/sec = centimeters per second min = minute mm = millimeters USCS =Unified Soil Classification System fl1 0 lD ^" 21-1-22082-003-R1-TB-1/wp/lkn tQ 21-1-22082-003 w � Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) iu SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SITE OF MESH OPENING IN INCHES NO. OF MESH OPENINGS PER INCH. U.S. STAPMRD GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 100 90 80 70 F- L7 W 60 00 m IY W 50 Z Ii Z W 40 ry W a 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 m X n m ao i 0 O D 50 U) m x m 60 m G) 70 --1 80 90 100 LEGEND USCS: Unified Soil Classification System COBBLE %: Percentage of cobbles in test specimen; based on pre -removal total dry mass for normalized tests NAT WC %: Natural water content Cu: Coefficient of uniformity Cc: Coefficient of curvature ASTM DES: ASTM International test standard designation G,: Specific gravity Sample specimen weight did not meet required minimum mass for ASTM test method. BORING AND SAMPLE NO. DEPTH (feet) I USCS GROUP USCS GROUPNAME COBBLE % GRAVEL % SAND % FINES % �0-02mm % <2um % NAT WC% Cu Cc TEST BV REVIEW BY ASTM DES Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report SYMBOL New Madrona K-8 Project OW-1, R-7 55.7 SM Silty Sand with Gravel 22 56 22 5.2 JCS JFL D422 OW-1, R-8' 63.5 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand with Silt 7 84 9.5 4.8 4.8 2.1 AKV JFL C136 Edmonds, Washington OW-1, R-10' 87.5 SP Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel 34 61 4.5 9.1 17.9 0.4 JCS JFL C136 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION OW-1, R-11 108.0 SM Silty Sand 7 74 19 4.7 JCS JFL C136 BORING OW-1 Q OW-1, R-14 125.0 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand with Silt 2 90 8.1 6.5 3.8 1.6 JCS JFL C136 June 2016 21-1-22082-003 ❑ OW-1, R-15' 135.0 SM Silty Sand 4 70 26 9.2 JCS JFL C136 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. B-1 A OW-1, R-17' 153.0 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand with Silt 4 88 8.0 5.0 4.1 1.5 JCS JFL C136 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 1 of 2 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIZE OF MESH OPENING IN INCHES 1 NO. OF MESH OPENINGS PER INCH. U.S. STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIME7ERS N 1C r: 7 C.� w e } [O W 5 Z LL f— Z W 4 O W W EL 3 2 0 BORING AND DEPTH USCS USCS SAMPLE NO (feet) GROUP GROUP NAME SYMBOL OW-1, R-21 1 182.0 1 SP-SM JPoody Graded Sand with Silt 10 20 30 m n m ao � n O D 50Cn 'D m A W 60 m G) 70 --1 80 90 100 GRAVEL SAND FINES 10.02mm 121m 1 NAT TEST REVIEW ASTM % WC % Cu Cc BY BY DES 7 1 E8 1 5.1 1 1 1 18.6 2.3 1.2 1 JCS I JFL C136 LEGEND USCS: Unified Soil Classification System COBBLE %• Percentage of cobbles in test specimen; based on pre -removal total dry mass for normalized tests NAT WC %: Natural water content Cu: Coefficient of uniformity Cc: Coefficient of curvature ASTM DES: ASTM International test standard designation G.: Specific gravity Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report New Madrona K-8 Project Edmonds, Washington GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION BORING OW-1 June 2016 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. B-1 Geotechnical and Emironmental Consultants Sheet 2 of 2 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) 6.1.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. 21-1-22082-003 C M T N C t V t 3 0 0. CD L N m C Q ti N O O T 0 N Z J a c m E 0 Q Packet Pg. 357 6.1.a SHANNON MMILSON, INC. APPENDIX C HYDROGOLOGIC DATA AND ANALYSES TABLE OF CONTENTS c 0 E 0 Page 0 a d W C.1 OBSERVATION WELL DEVELOPMENT............................................................C-1 0 0 z C.2 OBSERVATION WELL SAMPLING..... ... ...............................................C-1 in 0 c C.3 OBSERVATION WELL SLUG TESTING ................................C-2 0 0 CA GROUNDWATER LEVEL MONITO G..... ......C-2 � w C.5 PILOT DRY WELL FIELD TES .......C-3 C.6 REFERENCES ...,e. ..... ....... ....(.�...... ............. ............... C-4 a C-1 Baseline OW-' 1 Grbundx�ater ua1lt(Data C-2 Summary of S1b,g Tesalys s C-3 Summary of IW-� flow Te Results FIGURES C-1 Slug tests — Observation Well OW-1 C-2 Falling Head Slug Test 1 — Observation Well OW-1 C-3 Rising Head Slug Test 1 — Observation Well OW-1 C-4 Falling Head Slug Test 2 — Observation Well OW-1 C-5 Rising Head Slug Test 2 — Observation Well OW-1 C-6 Falling Head Slug Test 3 — Observation Well OW-1 C-7 Rising Head Slug Test 3 — Observation Well OW-1 C-8 Observation Well OW-1 Groundwater Depth and Precipitation Data C-9 Observation Well OW-1 Groundwater Depth and Barometric Pressure Data C-10 Barometric Efficiency Estimate for Observation Well OW-1 C-11 Observation Well OW-1 Response to IW-1 Test 21-1-22082-003-R1-AC.docx/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003 C-1 Packet Pg. 358 6.1.a TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) LABORATORY REPORT SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. Fremont Analytical Report, Lab ID: 1604140, Dated April 21, 2016 (29 pages) 21-1-22082-003-RI-AC.docx/wp/lkn C-ii 21-1-22082-003 Packet Pg. 359 6.1.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. APPENDIX C HYDROGEOLOGIC DATA AND ANALYSES CA OBSERVATION WELL DEVELOPMENT We developed observation well OW-1 on April 12, 2016, using an inertial -style pump (Waterra) equipped with a clean, Acetal, combination surge block and check valve attached to new, dedicated high -density polyethylene tubing. We measur • elf d parameters (pH, specific conductance, temperature, and turbidity) during de o nt, sta YSI model 556 multiparameter meter and a HF Scientific turbiditAmet r. _We surge -blacked the entire screened interval and purged approximately 68 gallons from $Dwell parameters stabilized during development, and the sc en w C.2 OBSERVATION WELL On April 14, 2016, we collected a grot rint baseline groundwater qualify 46—the r6i 'on� We sampled well O .using the s e r exception that a clean, taint' ss sst the surge block/check valve. We t) %ged W-sample after field parameter tt bill ( well casing volumes) had been pgrge . ent. Field � well OW-1 to measure ing infiltration testing. [t a's,was used for development, with the was u ed nstead of the Acetal combination to sampling, collecting the groundwater 3oximately 12.5 gallons of water (about 4.5 We delivered the groundwater samplb,�ipder chain -of -custody procedures to a subcontracted laboratory, Fremont Analytical of Seattle. The sample was tested for petroleum hydrocarbon - related constituents and primary and secondary drinking water parameters. Table C-1 presents the field parameters measured immediately before sample collection and a summary of the laboratory test results. Table C-1 also provides a comparison to Washington State groundwater quality standards. The laboratory data report is also presented in this appendix. In general, the OW-1 sample results indicate that the Project Qva aquifer groundwater quality is good. An exception was the relatively high concentration of manganese, 344 parts per billion (ppb), which is almost seven times the secondary (aesthetic) drinking water standard of 50 ppb. Manganese occurs naturally in soil and groundwater. The extent to which manganese dissolves into groundwater depends on the amount of oxygen in the water and, to a lesser extent, upon the pH of the water. If the oxygen content of groundwater is low, manganese tends to dissolve more 21-1-22082-003-R 1-AC, docx/wp/Ikn 21-1-22082-003 C-1 Packet Pg. 360 6.1.a SHANNON &WILSON, INC. readily. The zone from which the OW-1 groundwater sample was collected contains scattered organics, the decomposition of which depletes the oxygen content of the groundwater. This may contribute to the relatively high groundwater manganese concentration. C.3 OBSERVATION WELL SLUG TESTING We performed single -well field hydraulic conductivity tests ("slug" tests) in observation well OW-1 to estimate the horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the Qva aquifer. A slug test estimates the horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the saturated sedi ents immediately surrounding the screened zone of a well. We performed the OW si %ej,,ing\otApril 14, 2016. This procedure involved inducing a rapid change in wa er 1the we l via introduction or removal of a sealed, internally weighted, polyvinyl chloride V'§ ug. Ra 'ng the water level was achieved by lowering the slug below the static water vel to spl ce to within the well casing. This procedure is termed a "falling headdpst" c use eM r lalls with time back to the static level. Lowering the water 1e Cl was d�uiicly-rdmoving the slug from the well. This is termed a "rising ;r%e r st" be use tl1et er I el rises back to the static level after the slug is removed. We mov rats f hwell's water level back to g _. static using a data loggi g'pressu tr� sduc?(Lev log err , u,p�emented by manual readings. m. Figure C-1 presents the slu est cl to fo h thre faIIing­head and three rising head tests. We analyzed the slug test dat usin the eth❑ d v �elo d by Bouwer & Rice (1976), as modified by Bouwer (1989). We us the ,npu er m delln�/Software program AQTESOLV for Windows (Duffield, 2010), to i t, di' ay, a d match interpretation lines through the test data. The model provided values of by uIic conductivity based on the slope of these fits. Figures C-2 through C-7 present the s ug test curve matching, and Table C-2 summarizes the slug test results. The slug test results indicate that the average calculated hydraulic conductivity of the OW-1 screened zone is 55 feet per day (feet/day) (3.8 x 10-2 feet/minute). This average is higher than that obtained for the grain size analyses (10 feet/day; see Appendix B). CA GROUNDWATER LEVEL MONITORING Following completion of slug testing, we began long-term water level monitoring in OW-1. To collect frequent groundwater level data, we deployed a Levelogger and a data logging barometer (Barologger) in well OW-1. The Levelogger measures absolute pressure (atmospheric plus water pressure), and we used the Barologger data to remove the atmospheric pressure contribution to the Levelogger readings. We evaluated the barometric efficiency of well OW-1 by comparing the variation in well water level to changes in atmospheric pressure (Figure C-9). 21-1-22082-003-RI-AC.docx/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003 C-2 Packet Pg. 361 6.1.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. We calculated that the barometric efficiency of well OW-1 is approximately 90 percent (Figure C-10). This means that when the atmospheric pressure increases, the well water level decreases. Conversely, when the atmospheric pressure decreases, the well water level increases. We used the calculated barometric efficiency to filter the OW-1 groundwater level data so that the OW-1 well response to the IW-1 inflow test could be analyzed (Figure C-11). The measured groundwater level in well OW-1 has ranged from about 168.0 to 168.9 feet below grade, or about elevation 277.1 to 276.2 feet (Figure C-8). The monitoring period to date has ranged from April 12 to June 14, 2016. Transducer readi No;m OW-1 are still in the process of being collected, and these data will be incorporated ifit a r fir'aport. When retrieving data from well OW-1, we also co�]%Ct n 1 readin s at well IW-1. This well has been dry to date. Air blows audibly from the Iwell sin at ti gs probably in response to changes in atmospheric pressure. We are con�nui peri ical eolieTc undwatr level data from wells OW-1 and IW-1. / \ N ro C.5 PILOT DRY WELL FIELD ST We performed an infly tes�inpil dd (un April 25, 2016. Thi est co " tC4 of di�t1 fire hose and 2-inch-dia eter VCpi e in t period of about 8.5 hours. e m ur d t h ground injecti "control, or UIC) well IW-1 on Water from.a ydrant through a 2.5-inch-diameter dray well. We conducted the inflow testing for a 1\0 0 the well using an inline flow meter. We measured the water level in I 1 m nydlly tough a stilling pipe and by using Leveloggers installed at the well bottom. We a o meanu d the groundwater level in OW-1 before, during, and after the IW-1 inflow test, both and using a Levelogger. We conducted the IW-1 inflow test as a series of steps, with each step representing a higher average flow rate into the well. We performed the first four inflow steps at approximately 14, 38, 72, and 103 gallons per minute (gpm); we maintained these inflow rates for approximately 1 hour each (Figure 6). The fifth step lasted for about 4.3 hours. The fifth step inflow rate was more variable, initially reaching a maximum of about 126 gpm, which was sufficient to completely submerge the screened interval of the well. However, the flow rate from the hydrant began to fluctuate and drop off, possibly due to late afternoon increased domestic use of water at the adjacent apartment complex. The fifth step stabilized between about 116 and 107 gpm, averaging about 110 gpm over the last hour of the test. At this inflow rate, the IW-1 water level was about 67 feet below grade, or about 4 feet below the top of the well screen, representing a head rise above the borehole bottom of about 24 feet. Based on these data, the observed specific 2 ]-1-22082-003-R1-AC. docx/wp/Ikn 21-1-22082-003 C-3 Packet Pg. 362 6.1.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. capacity of IW-1 is approximately 4.6 gpm/foot, and the approximate K for the tested zone is 24 feet/day (1.7 x 10-2 feet/minute), as indicated in Table C-3. To date, the total variation in the regional Qva aquifer level measured in well OW-1 has been about 0.9 foot, as shown in Figure C-9. The groundwater level measured in well OW-1 did not immediately respond to the inflow test performed in IW-1 (Figure C-11). After adjusting the OW-1 groundwater level data for barometric efficiency, it was apparent that there was a slight antecedent rising trend in the OW-1 groundwater level (Figure C-11). This rising trend continued through and for a day after the IW-1 test and s+%0'Z- mask the immediate effect, if any, of the IW-1 test on the groundwater level mea The OW-1 groundwater level rose again slightly (0.1 foot), starting about ur d ys fter th,est and peaking six days after the test; this change in water level is probably o sma efin`itcly attribute to the inflow test. Based on these observations, the interbedded sil sand ye ithha4h�Qva, e.g., between about 134 and 138 feet deep, likely delay the v7eff-rc--aTNfiltratio f w r inta he Qva regional aquifer in the IW-1 test area vicinity. C.6 REFERENCES Bouwer, H., 1989, Th ouwer and c lug st -- p updatq. 'Ground Water, v. 27, no. 3, p.304-309. Bouwer, H., and Rice, R.0, 19 A slug tel m h. for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers wit am 1 to or is y penetrating wells: Water Resources Research, v. 12, no. 3, p. 4 -42 Duffield, Glenn M., 2010, AQTESO ersion 4.5 (computer program); HydroSOLVE, Inc., 2303 Horseferry Court, Reston, Va. 20191. Hazen, A., 1893, Some physical properties of sands and gravels: Massachusetts State Board of Health, 24th Annual Report. 21-1-22082-003-RI-AC.docx/wp/]kn 21-1-22082-003 C-4 Packet Pg. 363 6.1.a SHANNON & WILSON, INC. TABLE C-1 BASELINE OW-1 GROUNDWATER QUALITY DATA - - - -Nlk, Constituent Method per 173-200 WAC and 246-290 WAC MTCA Method A Cleanup Level per 173-340 WAC amp a o. OW-1- 041416 (Collected 4114/2016) (Field Parameters pH Field 6 5-8.5 7 1 Temperature °C Field 109 Specific Conductance (uS/cm) Field 700 330 Dissolved Oxy en (m L) Field 41 Turbidity (NTU) Field 1 5 Total Metals (u /L) Antimony EPA Method 200 8 6 ND<0.2 Arsenic EPA Method 200.8 005 5 ND<l Barium EPA Method 200 8 1,000 28.6 Beryllium EPA Method 200 8 4 ND<O 2 Cadmium EPA Method 200 8 5 5 ND<0.2 Chromium EPA Method 200 8 50 50 1 67 Copper EPA Method 20Q8 1,000 ND<0 5 Iron EPA Method 2perk 300 ND<100 Lead EPA Metho 200 AL-15 15 ND<l Manganese EPA M od 00 50 344 Mercury EP d 2 1 2 2 ND<0.1 Nickel A ethod200- 100 2,94 Selenium PA ethdd 200.8 10 ND<1 Silver EP Me od 200.8 50 ND<0.2 .Sodium etho 200 8 RL=20,000 12,900 Thallium \>EPAMeKod2008 2 ND<0-2 .Zinc ethod 20U 5,000 27.3 Anions (m /L) Chloride EPA Method 300-0 250 638 Cyanide alai SM 4500-CN C, E 02 ND<O 05 Fllmi a EPA Method 300-0 2 or 4 ND<O.I Nitrite-N, EPA Method 300.0 1 0J 59 Nilrale-N EPA Method 300.0 10 1 Ol Total Nitrate le EPA Method 30U 10 1-17 Ortho-Phosphate EPA Method 300.0 ND<0-2 :Sulfate EPA Method 300-0 250 22,6 Phosphorous, Total (as P) EPA Method 365 3 ND<0.2 Other Color (Color Units) SM 2120B 15 ND 'Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) SM 2540C 500 182 (Petroleum Hydrocarbons (u L) iDiesel (Fuel Oil) NWTPH-Dx/Dx Ext 500 ND<50 IHeavy Oil NWTPH-Dx/DxExL 500 ND<100 +Gasoline NWTPH-Gx 1,000 ND<50 Volatile Organic Compounds (u /L) �BenZcne EPA Method 8260C 1 5 ND<l 'Toluene EPA Method 8260C 1,000 ND<l lEthylbenzene EPA Method 8260C 700 ND<l m -X lene EPA Method 8260C 1,000 (Total Xylenes) ND<1 o-Xvleae EPA Method 8260C ND<1 Notes: BOLD = constituent exceeded regulatory standard AL = action level established by EPA for water distribution system C = Celsius cm = centimeters EPA = Environmental Protection Agency L = liter MCL = maximum contaminant level ug = micrograms uS = microSiemens mg = milligrams MTCA = Model Toxics Control Act NTU = Nephelometric turbidity units NWTPH-Dx/Dx Ext. =Northwest Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons-Diesel/Diesel Extended NWTPH-Gx = Northwest Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons -Gasoline ND = not detected RL=EPA-recommended level for those on a sodium -restrict diet SM = Standard Method WAC —Washington Administrative Code 21-1-22082-003-R 1-TC-1 /wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003 Packet Pg. 364 m 0 X m rt C4 w CA SHANNON & WILSON, INC. TABLE C-2 SUMMARY OF SLUG TEST ANALYSES Observation WeII Dumber Date Tested Test Number Static Water Level Depth feet b s Hvdraulic Conductivity (for An isotropic Case, K,1Kh7=0.l) Predominant Soil Type Screened By Well Interpreted Geologic Unit Tested feet/day cm/sec feet/min OW-1 4/14/2016 Falling Head Test 1 168.3 45 1. -02 3.2E-02 SP-SM/SP Qva —Rising Head Test 1 50 8E-N 3.5E-02 Falling Head Test 2 54 /1. E-02 3.7E-02 Rising Head Test 2 52 \ 11.8E-02 3.6E-02 Falling Head Test 3 Rising Head Test 3 5 \ DOE-02 2.7E-02 3.8E-02 5.4E-02 Geomean \ 55 1.9E-02 3.8E-02 Notes: bgs = below ground surface cm/sec = centimeters per second Kh = horizontal hydraulic conductivity Kv = vertical hydraulic conductivity min = minute 21-1-22082-003-R1-TC-2/wp/Ilrn Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. TABLE C-3 SUMMARY OF IW-1 INFLOW TEST RESULTS Appro3drawe . 11iprruiml[c Top+,f Tr•t H- •IMTrr of Apt+n,.ii+nmtr Taf.Sc IiriR. 1C;,[e+ lftiirirulic H�xSrnubt IRJrrn lic Approaimair t]is4lurkr Il?,ri,:u,r ClK, irir Sr+'liull Tcst',eniwi Trr tieclJ4n B.rtL❑In 1r"' (•+lunm 1:4,rCLAV i-r,nduciriiN�', [niplr,i +h iL �•. [: r.udrirli�lfj'- 1ntCrpteled Wc11 Grade FIEVar,mt ]t;ytc Rwz R: Ire t v1+:+iiip 11, prh 11ctdL Tot, Elevation IJcv4w,aj lxa-'ILL, F Hci^bt. H 1, K li t':crrL:;;, �• Number (feet NA4rD 83) Tcstcd (gpm) +r,i lr•'dm I (gpiivTimtj (fcey Ifu,i (feet) (fret J reef J fee[ i 1 feet { } (feeGda}] frn u'—] frriin I-rll Cnir Tes red IW-1 ah5.1 425+?Of6 110 21174 1 C6 67.4 913 zc-ir+ 233 -3.3 1 0.4•I 24 .1,4 -03 ]?L02 Cla Notes: ° Discharge to well (q) is the average measured over the last approximately one hour of the test period. b Equation for K estimation is from U S. Department of the Interior, 1990 Procedure for constant head hydraulic conductivity tests in singgle drill. holes, U.S Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) 7310-89, in Earth Manual, Part 2, 3rd ed p. 1225, Equation 2 (for L>=10r). L=H, which is the approximately stabilized water height in the well above the drilled depth of 91.2 feet. cu ft =cubic feet cm/sec =centimeters per second gpm= gallons per minute min = minute NAVD = North American Vertical Datum 21-1-22082-003-RIJC-3/,vpNm Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) 21-1-22082-003 LEGEND Falling Head Test #1 —Rising Head Test #1 —Falling Head Test #2 Rising Head Test #2 — = Falling Head Test #3 -Rising Head Test #3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Time (Seconds) I_ Draft OW-1 Slug Analysis-OW-1 Slug Test Plot-6/27/2016-pvh Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) m 0 X CD W r� 00 10. 1 1 P I t I P I P I P i I 1 4 1 1 1 Obs. Wells ° OW-1-Fa" Head? est#1 AquAer Model Urconflned ° SoluSon Bcuwer-Face Parameters K = 45.47 ft/day y0=3308ft ° C 0 E U d W 0.1 0.01 ° e 0. 4. 8. 12. 16. 20. Time (sec) Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report New Madrona K-8 Project Edmonds, Washington FALLING HEAD SLUG TEST 1 -n raft OBSERVATION WELL OW-1 E), 1 n June 2016 21-1-22082-003 IN SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. C-2 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants OW-1 Slug Analysis-OW-1 FH1-6/27/2016-pvh Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) 1 Obs. Wells o OW-1-Fading Head Test #2 Aquifer Model Unconfined Soki ion u Bauwer-Rice Parameters ° K = 53.78 May yO = 4.373 ft 1 m >_ U W C Ta 0.01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1\1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0. 4. 8. 12. 16. 20_ Time (sec) Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report New Madrona K-8 Project Edmonds, Washington RISING HEAD SLUG TEST 1 Draft OBSERVATION WELL OW-1 -n June 2016 21-1-22082-003 n SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. C-3 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants OW-1 Slua Analvsis-OW-1 RH1-6/27/2016-pvh Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) 10_ 06s. Wells c OW-1-Faking Head Test #2 Atlifer Bode[ Unconfined ' So{ubon o Bouwer-Rice Parameters 0 K = 53.78 May y0 = 4.373 ft 9. a c E U lC C 0.1 0.01 0. 4 8_ 12. 16. 20. Time (sec) Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report New Madrona K-8 Project Edmonds, Washington FALLING HEAD SLUG TEST 2 Draft OBSERVATION WELL OW-1 n June 2016 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. C-4 Geotechmal and Environmental Cansultants OW-1 Slug Analysis-OW-1 FH2-6/27/2016-pvh Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) 10. Obs Wells o OW-1-Rising Head Test #2 Agtder Model Ulnwnfrned Solailbon Bomer-Rice Parameters 13 fl K = 51.51 tit/day y0 = 6.001 tt 1. o c E U W a 0 Q 0.1 0.01 0. 4. 8. 12. 16. 20. Tmm(sec) Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report New Madrona K-8 Project Edmonds, Washington Draft RISING HEAD SLUG TEST 2 OBSERVATION WELL OW-1 -n June 2016 21-1-22082-003 n SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. C-5 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants OW-1 Slug Analysis-OW-1 RH2-6/27/2016-pvh Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) 10. ohs. Wells o OW-1-Falling Head Test #3 Aquifer Model UnconMed soluhOn Bouwer-Rice Parameters K = 56.32 ft/day y0 = 3.727 ft 1- o 1= a E U W a 0 0.1 0.01 0. 4_ 8. 12. 16. 20. Time (sec) Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report New Madrona K-8 Project Edmonds, Washington FALLING HEAD SLUG TEST 3 ,n Draft OBSERVATION WELL OW-1 n June 2016 21-1-22082-003 1 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. C-6 Geotechni[al and Environmental Corrsultants OW-1 Slug Analysis-OW-1 FH3-6I27I2016-pvh Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) 10_ ❑bs. WeAs a OW-4-Rising Head Test #3 Agu fer Model Unconfined Solution Bomer-Rice o Parameters q � K = 77.24 May y0 =19.38 ft 1_ 0 m oa o W n 0.1 0.01 0_ 4 0. 12. 16. 20. Tmte (sec) Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report New Madrona K-8 Project Edmonds, Washington -n RISING HEAD SLUG TEST 3 OBSERVATION WELL OW-1 raft June 2016 21-1-22082-003 n ti SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. C-7 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants OW-1 Slug Analysis-OW-1 RH3-6I27I2016-pvh Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) 168.0 33.9 ft 168.1 33.8 168.2 33.7 m a�if m 168.3 I 33.6 cca cn A aIF V0 168.4 V 0 33.5 a� c9 IL Q0 168.5 --- - l_%- ••• - 33.4 m CL 0 168.6 - -- • • • a - 33.3 ir_ Now IF L Qi a 168.7 33.2 � 0 (9 • �� •r OW-1 Transducer Data 168.8 , ■ OW-1 Manual Data 33.1 -IW-1 Testing 168.9 - - .....OW-1 Transducer Data Adjusted for Barometric Efficiency 33 _ - - Barometric Pressure 169.0 _ 32.9 4/22/16 4/24/16 4/26/16 4/28116 4/30/16 5/2/16 5/4/16 5/6/16 Date (Local Time) Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report DRAFTNew Madrona K-8 Project NOTES Edmonds, Washington 1. The screen in observation well OW-1 is approximately 175.4 to 185.0 feet below ground surface, OBSERVATION WELL OW-1 (approximately elevation 269.7 to 260.0 feet (NAVD88)). RESPONSE TO IWA TEST 2. Pilot dry well IWA was drilled and installed 4/19/16-4/21/16and screened approximately n 63.3 to 90.4 feet below ground surface (approximately elevation 381.6 to 354.5 feet NAVD88)). n IW-1 infiltration test was performed on 4/25/16 from 10:03-18:34. June 2016 21-1-22082-003 3. Black and white reproduction of this color original may lead to incorrect interpretation. SHANNON $c WtLSDN, INC. Geotechnicaland Env ^onnertEalConsultants FIG. C-11 OW-1 Water Levels-OW-1 IWA Test-6/23/2016-pvh Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) 168.0 168.1 �168.2 U _ - 1 !- ----- - 33.9 - 33.8 -._r--- - 33.7 (D �y t� 0 168.3 33.6 m cn fr .r o ` 0 168.4 C9A Arm P 33.5 a) m a168.5 33.4 M . t�o .� •... CL ` a 00168.6 33.3 a� m - E v 168.7 33.2 m 168.8 168.9 - OW-1 Transducer Data 0OW-1 Manual Data - IW-1 Testing • • • • • OW-1 Transducer Data Adjusted for Barometric Efficiency - - Barometric Pressure -� 33.1 33 ;:.: .. - - - - �- 169.0 4/22/16 4/24/16 4/26/16 4/28/16 4/30/16 5/2/16 Date (Local Time) NOTES DRAFTNew 1. The screen in observation well OW-1 is approximately 175.4 to 185.0 feet below ground surface, -n (approximately elevation 269.7 to 260.0 feet (NAVD88)). 2. Pilot dry well IW-1 was drilled and installed 4/19/16-4/21/16and screened approximately 63.3 to 90.4 feet below ground surface (approximately elevation 381.6 to 354.5 feet NAVD88)). n IWA infiltration test was performed on 4/25/16 from 10:03-18:34. 3. Black and white reproduction of this color original may lead to incorrect interpretation. 32.9 5/4/16 5/6/16 Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report Madrona K-8 Project Edmonds, Washington OBSERVATION WELL OW-1 RESPONSE TO IWA TEST June 2016 21-1-22082-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants FIG. C-11 OW-1 Water Levels-OW-1 IWA Test-6/23/2016-pvh Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) 168.0 33.9 168.1 33.8 168.2 33.7 a) a� m 168.3 dr 33.6 CU`C - - iIt -o 0 168.4 33. 5 o - �� CD LL i • •�'i `� '��" _.._ m 168.5 -j - �.._Z J��`. N 33.4 In ... co CL p a - 33.3 LIVE - - L 168.7 -X - - 33.2 `m 0 0 m O 168.8 ..N• ■•' +' OW-1 Transducer Data 33.1 .... _ N OW-1 Manual Data -IW-1 Testing 168.9 ••.•.OW-1 Transducer Data Adjusted for Barometric Efficiency 33 - - Barometric Pressure 169.0 --- 32.9 4/22/16 4/24/16 4/26/16 4/28/16 4/30/16 5/2/16 5/4/16 5/6/16 Date (Local Time) Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report DRAFTNew Madrona K-8 Project NOTES Edmonds, Washington 1. The screen in observation well OW-1 is approximately 175.4 to 185.0 feet below ground surface, OBSERVATION WELL OW-1 (approximately elevation 269.7 to 260.0 feet (NAVD88)). 2. Pilot dry well IWA was drilled and installed 4/19/16-4/21/16and screened approximately RESPONSE TO IW-1 TEST 63.3 to 90.4 feet below ground surface (approximately elevation 381.6 to 354.5 feet NAVD88)). n IW-1 infiltration test was performed on 4/25/16 from 10:03-18:34. June 2016 21-1-22082-003 11 3. Black and white reproduction of this color original may lead to incorrect interpretation. SHANNON $c WIL$ON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants FIG. C-11 OW-1 Water Levels-OW-1 IW-1 Test-6/23/2016-pvh Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) 168.0 33.9 168.1 _ --- - -'-4- 33.8 1682 - - - - - -- 33.7 33.6 ccaa 168.3 f -- -- -- % o 168.4 --- - -- - - -`--- - - -►F / - 33.5 , 2it N 3 • �' N 168.5 33.4 m trn •• •+• m �- - - -..: •. . - L o- - .... 33.3 0 168.6 o L ca E v r- - - - - 33.2 m 168.7 c m o .. •• OW-1 Transducer Data 168.8 33.1 .•. o OW-1 Manual Data • ••+ ---- w-IW-1 Testing 168.9 __ - -- • • • • • OW-1 Transducer Data Adjusted for Barometric Efficiency -' - 33 ...... I - - Barometric Pressure 169.0 J _ 32.9 4/22/16 4/24/16 4/26/16 4/28/16 4/30/16 5/2/16 5/4/16 5/6/16 Date (Local Time) Preliminary Hydrogeologic Report DRAFTNew Madrona K-8 Project NOTES Edmonds, Washington 1. The screen in observation well OW-1 is approximately 175.4 to 185.0 feet below ground surface, OBSERVATION WELL OWA (approximately elevation 269.7 to 260.0 feet (NAVD88)). RESPONSE TO IWA TEST 2. Pilot dry well IW-1 was drilled and installed 4/19/16-4/21/16and screened approximately ui 63.3 to 90.4 feet below ground surface (approximately elevation 381.6 to 354.5 feet NAVD88)). n IW-1 infiltration test was performed on 4/25/16 from 10:03-18:34. June 2016 21-1-22082-003 3. Black and white reproduction of this color original may lead to incorrect interpretation. SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants FIG. C-11 rl1A/-1 1Ahtor I Avolc_(1V\/_1 I1A/-1 TPCt-R/93/9r1R-nvh Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) iu 6.1.a ".... Fremont GrOUIMMA CLIENT: Project: Lab Order: Lab Sample ID 1604140-001 1604140-002 Shannon & Wilson Madrona K-8 School 1604140 Client Sample ID OW-1-041416 Trip Blank Date: 0510512016 Work Order Sample Summary Date/Time Collected 04/14/2016 11:18 AM 04/13/2016 12:48 PM Revision v1 Note: If no "Time Collected" is supplied, a default of 12:OOAM is assigned Date/Time Received 04/14/2016 4:07 PM 04/14/2016 4:07 PM Page 3 of 29 Packet Pg. 378 6.1.a 7,,,Fremont CLIENT: Shannon & Wilson Project: Madrona K-8 School I. SAMPLE RECEIPT: Samples receipt information is recorded on the attached Sample Receipt Checklist. Case Narrative WO#: 1604140 Date: 4/21/2016 II. GENERAL REPORTING COMMENTS: Results are reported on a wet weight basis unless dry -weight correction is denoted in the units field on the analytical report ("mg/kg-dry" or "ug/kg-dry"). Matrix Spike (MS) and MS Duplicate (MSD) samples are tested from an analytical batch of "like" matrix to check for possible matrix effect. The MS and MSD will provide site specific matrix data only for those samples which are spiked by the laboratory. The sample chosen for spike purposes may or may not have been a sample submitted in this sample delivery group. The validity of the analytical procedures for which data is reported in this analytical report is determined by the Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) and the Method Blank (MB). The LCS and the MB are processed with the samples and the MS/MSD to ensure method criteria are achieved throughout the entire analytical process. III. ANALYSES AND EXCEPTIONS: Exceptions associated with this report will be footnoted in the analytical results page(s) or the quality control summary page(s) and/or noted below. 1604140-001 E C-COLOR has been Sub Contracted. Revision v1 Page 4 of 29 Packet Pg. 379 6.1.a Fremont �mf er17fr* A Qualifiers: Qualifiers & Acronyms W O#: 1604140 Date Reported: 4/21/2016 * - Flagged value is not within established control limits B - Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank D - Dilution was required E - Value above quantitation range H - Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded I - Analyte with an internal standard that does not meet established acceptance criteria J - Analyte detected below Reporting Limit N - Tentatively Identified Compound (TIC) Q - Analyte with an initial or continuing calibration that does not meet established acceptance criteria (<20%RSD, <20% Drift or minimum RRF) S - Spike recovery outside accepted recovery limits ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit R - High relative percent difference observed Acronyms: %Rec - Percent Recovery CCB - Continued Calibration Blank CCV - Continued Calibration Verification DF - Dilution Factor HEM - Hexane Extractable Material ICV - Initial Calibration Verification LCS/LCSD - Laboratory Control Sample / Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate MB or MBLANK - Method Blank MDL - Method Detection Limit MS/MSD - Matrix Spike / Matrix Spike Duplicate PDS - Post Digestion Spike Ref Val - Reference Value RL - Reporting Limit RPD - Relative Percent Difference SD - Serial Dilution SGT - Silica Gel Treatment SPK - Spike Surr - Surrogate Revision v1 www.fremontanalytical.com Page 5 of 29 Packet Pg. 380 6.1.a Fremont �� F►T1ir%iT:r�7�1 Client: Shannon & Wilson Project: Madrona K-8 School Lab ID: 1604140-001 Client Sample ID: OW-1-041416 Analyses Result Diesel and Heavv Oil by NWTPH-Dx1Dx Ext. Diesel (Fuel Oil) ND Heavy Oil ND Surr: 2-Fluorobiphenyl 73.5 Surr: o-Terphenyl 77.5 Gasoline by NWTPH-Gx Analytical Report W O#: 1604140 Date Reported: 4/21/2016 Collection Date: 4/14/2016 11:18:00 AM Matrix: Groundwater RL Qual Units DF Date Analyzed Batch ID: 13481 Analyst: CM 50.0 pg/L 1 4/19/2016 11:45:00 PM 100 pg/L 1 4/19/2016 11:45:00 PM 50-150 %Rec 1 4/19/2016 11:45:00 PM 50-150 %Rec 1 4/19/2016 11:45:00 PM Batch ID: R28812 Analyst: NG Gasoline ND 50.0 Surr:4-Bromofluorobenzene 99.4 65-135 Surr: Toluene-d8 98.8 65-135 Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260C Benzene ND Toluene ND Ethylbenzene ND m,p-Xylene ND o-Xylene ND Surr: Dibromofluoromethane 102 Surr: Toluene-d8 94.3 Surr: 1-Bromo-4-fluorobenzene 97.2 Ion Chromatography by EPA Method_300_0 Fluoride ND Chloride 6.38 Nitrite 0.159 Nitrate 1.01 Nitrate+Nitrite 1.17 Ortho-Phosphate ND Sulfate 22.6 Mercury by EPA Method 245.1_ Mercury ND Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8 Antimony ND Revision v1 pg/L 1 4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM %Rec 1 4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM %Rec 1 4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM Batch ID: R28811 Analyst: NG 1.00 pg/L 1 4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM 1 00 pg/L 1 4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM 1.00 pg/L 1 4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM 1 00 pg/L 1 4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM 1.00 pg/L 1 4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM 45.4-152 %Rec 1 4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM 40.1-139 %Rec 1 4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM 64.2-128 %Rec 1 4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM Batch ID: R28832 Analyst: MW 0.100 mg/L 1 4/15/2016 12:09:00 PM 0 100 mg/L 1 4/15/2016 12:09:00 PM 0.100 mg/L 1 4/15/2016 12:09:00 PM 0.100 mg/L 1 4/15/2016 12:09:00 PM 0 100 mg/L 1 4/15/2016 12:09:00 PM 0.200 mg/L 1 4/15/2016 12:09:00 PM 0.300 mg/L 1 4/15/2016 12:09:00 PM Batch ID: 13469 Analyst: MW 0.100 pg/L 1 4/18/2016 3:00:59 PM Batch ID: 13468 Analyst: TN 0.200 pg/L 1 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM Page 6 of 29 Packet Pg. 381 6.1.a Fremont f777MZ . r rA ..........ram Analytical Report W O#: 1604140 Date Reported: 4/21/2016 Client: Shannon & Wilson Collection Date: 4/14/2016 11:18:00 AM Project: Madrona K-8 School Lab ID: 1604140-001 Matrix: Groundwater Client Sample ID: OW-1-041416 Analyses Result RL Qual Units DF Date Analyzed Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8 Arsenic ND Barium 28.6 Beryllium ND Cadmium ND Chromium 1.67 Copper ND Iron ND Lead ND Manganese 344 Nickel 2.94 Selenium ND Silver ND Sodium 12,900 Thallium ND Zinc 27.3 Cyanide by SM 4500-CN C B Cyanide, Total ND Total Phosphorous by EPA Method 365.3 Phosphorus, Total (As P) ND Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) by SM 2540C Total Dissolved Solids 182 Revision v1 Batch ID: 13468 Analyst: TN 1.00 pg/L 1 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM 0.500 pg/L 1 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM 0.200 pg/L 1 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM 0.200 pg/L 1 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM 0.500 pg/L 1 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM 0.500 pg/L 1 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM 100 pg/L 1 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM 1 00 pg/L 1 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM 2.00 pg/L 1 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM 0.500 pg/L 1 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM 1.00 pg/L 1 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM 0.200 pg/L 1 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM 100 pg/L 1 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM 0.200 pg/L 1 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM 1.50 pg/L 1 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM Batch ID: 13500 Analyst: NG 0.0500 mg/L 1 4/21/2016 10:03:00 AM Batch ID: 13510 Analyst: KT 0.200 mg/L 1 4/21/2016 2:25:00 PM Batch ID: R28863 Analyst: KT 5.00 mg/L 1 4/19/2016 4:04:00 PM Page 7 of 29 Packet Pg. 382 6.1.a SPECTRA Laboratories ...Where e.yerienfy matters 2221 Ross Way • Taconoa, WA 98421 • (253) 272-4850 • Fax (253) 572-9838 • www,spectra-lab.com 05/05/2016 a� E Client ID: 1604140-001 E U Fremont Analytical Sample Matrix: Groundwater �. 3600 Fremont Ave N. Date Sampled: 04/14/2016 Seattle, WA 98103 Date Received: 04/18/2016 0 Attn: Mike Ridgeway Spectra Project: 2016040430 Spectra Number: 1 a 0 L C� C Anal e Result Units Method Cl) r Color ND Color Units SM 2120B SPECTRA LABORATORIES Steve Hibbs, Laboratory Manager Page 9 of 9 a6/mkw Page 8 of 29 Packet Pg. 383 6.1.a Jennifer Draven Front: Mike Ridgewayrmridgeway@fremontanalytical.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2015 4:45 PM To. Jennifer Draven Subject: RE: Groundwater Project 2016040430 11t,s( ?r. GUI prrterred method. i think it lust dpf'mIli ed r»r tli- C4)c. -! hank yui, for rheckinoi Mike Ridgeway FrernoTit Anolytka1, Inc. 3600 rTel "fit Ave. N. Seattle, WA 98103 Tel, nG.357.3790 Fax: 206.352-7178 CON rIDFUTIMiTY NOTICE. Thls a -mall message, Indudirig any attachmanis, is for the5ok: clan of tht, intended re, Clplenl(s) and maVcaWin tanlidonti.iI and privllnKv.d Inlarmatlon. Any unauthorirnd rLIwlew, Jae, dNdDIvrn a dlstrihutlon is prohlbItad, If vau are not the inlenrfrd roriplerrl, Please cnntact the weldor hyrrply rr m o f and dastToy all copies of the orlglnal message From: Jennifer Draven f mallto:Jenniferd@spectra••lab,cornj Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 4,22 PM To: mridgeway@fremontanalytical.com $utl act: Groundwater Project 2016040430 Hf Michael, the analysis requested (color) on the attached COC indicates the inethod code F1.10.3. We use tfie drinking water method 5M 2120B. Will this method work for your purposes? Je sv arwve+v 2 53 -2 72 -48 50 1 Page 9 of 2'_3 Packet Pg. 384 1rirumun i qxu'K'4 Vv gUalullY RECORD Lo PCIK7 233 svBcaarMAiaxSpectra C AN4: SPECTRALaWratW" ADDRM: 2221 Roes Way CrM 8TATF,ZM Tacoma, WA 98421 FxoNs (253) 272-4950 "'. (253) 572-9838 ` accovrrt�r`-` ARRM—S Fremommnal &ca4 Inc. 360OFremontAue. N. Seattle, WA 98103 7 L.206-352-3790 PAX. 206-352-7178 Website: www.fremontanalyticaLcom sFEML DWnKjCR0NSt Plcas--ccl2iJ to hiivaei Ridgeway and Chelsea Ward - mrid9Way@ftenionWnaIy(ica com; %.ward@&,monu a7lical,colt SAMPIdiID CLLiEN AS mp m BCMLETYPE MAiRi]C DAIBCOf.I.EC1'BF] I.jUldBHROF COM6BN1S1dcLysndPrc vaSWei Z CONfAMM HOT 9unple tJ[dincnL Rdditi. S+ec7r Dm csy i6U414a0Q1E OV�1-04I�415 ��0 NDPE NON C�7ourKhnra6� 4114RD1b 11:18:08 AM — 1 ____ Y Daft BT- DMW / 75mC d REPMT TRANSMUTAL DE Uwt Br Tmie: ❑ HARDCOFY(aft wet) [] FAX [,�,7,{,�{, ❑ ONLINE BY DM Umc eeoavedBy zittac � FOR LAB USE ONLY TAT: emodecd (Gf - RUSH Nod BD ❑ Ld BD ❑ 3rd BD ❑ Z of °C Atkmpt to Cm17 — rt N o Nalrt B� r�r� w133•ear mai�r�rt Commeafe: _ (P � o W 00 (No 01 0 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) s �+Fremont Work Order: 1604140 CLIENT: Shannon & Wilson Project: Madrona K-8 School Date: 412112016 QC SUMMARY REPORT Cyanide by SM 4600-CN C, E Sample ID: MB-13500 SampType: MBLK Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/20/2016 RunNo: 28891 Client ID: MBLKW Batch ID: 13500 Analysis Date: 4/21/2016 SegNo: 543216 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Cyanide, Total ND 0.0500 Sample ID: LCS-13500 SampType: LCS Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/20/2016 RunNo: 28891 Client ID: LCSW Batch ID: 13500 Analysis Date: 4/21/2016 SegNo: 543205 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Cyanide, Total 0.250 0.0500 0.2500 0 99.8 80 120 Sample ID: 1604152-001ADUP SampType: DUP Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/20/2016 RunNo: 28891 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 13500 Analysis Date: 4/21/2016 SegNo: 543209 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Cyanide, Total ND 0.0500 0 20 Sample ID: 1604152-001AMS SampType: MS Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/20/2016 RunNo: 28891 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 13500 Analysis Date: 4/21/2016 SegNo: 543210 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Cyanide, Total 0.274 0.0500 0.2500 0.02350 100 80 120 Sample ID: 1604152-001AMSD SampType: MSD Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/20/2016 RunNo: 28891 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 13500 Analysis Date: 4/21/2016 SegNo: 543211 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual NOTES: m S - Outlying spike recovery(ies) observed. A duplicate analysis was performed and recovered within range. 0 X CD rt cQ Revision v1 Page 11 of 29 °' Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) Fremont I� t � _ Work Order: 1604140 CLIENT: Shannon & Wilson Project: Madrona K-8 School Date: 412112016 QC SUMMARY REPORT Ion Chromatography by EPA Method 300.0 Sample ID: MB-R28832 SampType: MBLK Units: mg/L Prep Date: 411512016 RunNo: 28832 Client ID: MBLKW Batch ID: R28832 Analysis Date: 4/15/2016 SegNo: 541986 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Fluoride ND 0.100 Chloride ND 0.100 Nitrite ND 0.100 Nitrate ND 0.100 Nitrate+Nitrite ND 0.100 Sulfate ND 0.300 Sample ID: LCS-R28832 SampType: LCS Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016 RunNo: 28832 Client ID: LCSW Batch ID: R28832 Analysis Date: 4/15/2016 SegNo: 541987 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Fluoride 2.09 0.100 2.000 0 105 90 110 Chloride 2.88 0.100 3.000 0 96.0 90 110 Nitrite 2.97 0.100 3.000 0 98.9 90 110 Nitrate 3.03 0.100 3.000 0 101 90 110 Nitrate+Nitrite 6.00 0.100 6.000 0 100 90 110 Sulfate 15.6 0.300 15.00 0 104 90 110 Sample ID: 1604140-001DDUP SampType: DUP Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016 RunNo: 28832 Client ID: OW-1-041416 Batch ID: R28832 Analysis Date: 4/15/2016 SegNo: 541989 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Fluoride ND 0.100 0 20 Chloride 6.37 0.100 6.376 0.133 20 Nitrite 0.161 0.100 0.1594 0.874 20 Nitrate 1.02 0.100 1.011 0.709 20 Nitrate+Nitrite 1.18 0.100 1.171 0.732 20 Sulfate 22.6 0.300 22.62 0.142 20 0 X CD rt (Q u, Revision v1 ao 4 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) C7 Paae 12 of 2 p� Fremont II•1T.7M;rsT7-8 Work Order: 1604140 CLIENT: Shannon & Wilson Project: Madrona K-8 School Date: 412112016 QC SUMMARY REPORT Ion Chromatography by EPA Method 300.0 Sample ID: 1604140-001DMS SampType: MS Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/1512016 RunNo: 28832 Client ID: OW-1-041416 Batch ID: R28832 Analysis Date: 4/15/2016 SegNo: 541990 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Fluoride 2.08 0.100 2.000 0.06680 101 80 120 Chloride 8.98 0.100 3.000 6.376 86.7 80 120 Nitrite 3.05 0.100 3.000 0.1594 96.5 80 120 Nitrate 3.95 0.100 3.000 1.011 98.1 80 120 Nitrate+Nitrite 7.01 0.100 6.000 1.171 97.3 80 120 Sulfate 37.2 0.300 15.00 22.62 97.3 80 120 Sample ID: 1604140-001DMSD SampType: MSD Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016 RunNo: 28832 Client ID: OW-1-041416 Batch ID: R28832 Analysis Date: 4/15/2016 SegNo: 541991 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Fluoride 2.09 0.100 2.000 0.06680 101 80 120 2.084 0.161 20 Chloride 8.97 0.100 3.000 6.376 86.3 80 120 8.978 0.136 20 Nitrite 3.04 0.100 3.000 0.1594 96.2 80 120 3.053 0.286 20 Nitrate 3.92 0.100 3.000 1.011 97.0 80 120 3.953 0.792 20 Nitrate+Nitrite 6.97 0.100 6.000 1.171 96.6 80 120 7.006 0.571 20 Sulfate 37.0 0.300 15.00 22.62 95.8 80 120 37.22 0.623 20 m 0 X CD rt cQ Revision v1 w 00 C. Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) Page 13 of 29 tjFremiont li7'i1i7irrAr74 Work Order: 1604140 CLIENT: Shannon & Wilson Project: Madrona K-8 School Date: 412112016 QC SUMMARY REPORT Total Phosphorous by EPA Method 365.3 Sample ID: MB-13510 SampType: MBLK Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/2112016 RunNo: 28899 Client ID: MBLKW Batch ID: 13510 Analysis Date: 4/2112016 SegNo: 543434 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Phosphorus, Total (As P) ND 0.200 Sample ID: LCS-13510 SampType: LCS Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/21/2016 RunNo: 28899 Client ID: LCSW Batch ID: 13510 Analysis Date: 4/21/2016 SegNo: 543435 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Phosphorus, Total (As P) 2.17 0.200 2.000 0 109 65 135 Sample ID: 1604140-001HDUP SampType: DUP Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/21/2016 RunNo: 28899 Client ID: OW-1-041416 Batch ID: 13510 Analysis Date: 4/2112016 SegNo: 543437 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Phosphorus, Total (As P) ND 0.200 0 30 Sample ID: 1604140-001HMS SampType: MS Units: mg/L Prep Date: 412112016 RunNo: 28899 Client ID: OW-1-041416 Batch ID: 13510 Analysis Date: 4/21/2016 SegNo: 543438 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Phosphorus, Total (As P) 1.90 0.200 2.000 0.01800 94.2 65 135 Sample ID: 1604140-001HMSD SampType: MSD Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/21/2016 RunNo: 28899 Client ID: OW-1-041416 Batch ID: 13510 Analysis Date: 4/21/2016 SegNo: 543439 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual d 0 X CD rt (Q u, Revision v1 00 2.18 0.200 2.000 0.01800 108 65 135 1.902 13.5 30 C7 Pane 14 of 2 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) Fremont Work Order: 1604140 CLIENT: Shannon & Wilson Project: Madrona K-8 School Date: 412112016 QC SUMMARY REPORT Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) by SM 2640C Sample ID: MB-R28863 SampType: MBLK Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/19/2016 RunNo: 28863 Client ID: MBLKW Batch ID: R28863 Analysis Date: 4/19/2016 SegNo: 542617 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Total Dissolved Solids ND 5A0 Sample ID: LCS-R28863 SampType: LCS Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/19/2016 RunNo: 28863 Client ID: LCSW Batch ID: R28863 Analysis Date: 4/19/2016 SegNo: 542618 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Total Dissolved Solids 304 10.0 300.0 0 101 65 135 Sample ID: 1604140-001DDUP SampType: DUP Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/19/2016 RunNo: 28863 Client ID: OW-1-041416 Batch ID: R28863 Analysis Date: 4/19/2016 SegNo: 542620 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Total Dissolved Solids m 0 X CD rt Revision v1 w co 0 203 5.00 182.0 10.9 30 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) Page 15 of 29 Fremont Work Order: 1604140 CLIENT: Shannon & Wilson Project: Madrona K-8 School Date: 4/21/2016 QC SUMMARY REPORT Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8 Sample ID: MB-13468 SampType: MBLK Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/16/2016 RunNo: 28822 Client ID: MBLKW Batch ID: 13468 Analysis Date: 4/1512016 SegNo: 541791 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Antimony ND 0.200 Arsenic ND 1.00 Barium ND 0.500 Beryllium ND 0.200 Cadmium ND 0.200 Chromium ND 0.500 Copper ND 0.500 Iron ND 100 Lead ND 1.00 Manganese ND 2.00 Nickel ND 0.500 Selenium ND 1.00 Silver ND 0.200 Sodium ND 100 Thallium ND 0.200 Zinc ND 1.50 Sample ID: LCS-13468 SampType: LCS Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016 RunNo: 28822 Client ID: LCSW Batch ID: 13468 Analysis Date: 4/16/2016 SegNo: 541792 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Copper n Iron ': Lead C4 Revision v1 co 4.52 0.200 5.000 0 90.4 85 115 101 1.00 100.0 0 101 85 115 99.3 0.500 100.0 0 99.3 85 115 5.16 0.200 5.000 0 103 85 115 5.70 0.200 5.000 0 114 85 115 92.5 0.500 100.0 0 92.5 85 115 96.2 0.500 100.0 0 96.2 85 115 1,090 100 1,000 0 109 50 150 45.3 1.00 50.00 0 90.7 85 115 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) 01, Pane 16 of 2 p� Fremont W, Mfur Tin► Work Order: 1604140 CLIENT: Shannon & Wilson Project: Madrona K-8 School Date: 412112016 QC SUMMARY REPORT Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8 Sample ID: LCS-13468 SampType: LCS Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016 RunNo: 28822 Client ID: LCSW Batch ID: 13468 Analysis Date: 4/15/2016 SegNo: 541792 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Manganese 100 2.00 100.0 0 100 85 115 Nickel 95.5 0.500 100.0 0 95.5 85 115 Selenium 9.94 1.00 10.00 0 99.4 85 115 Silver 4.66 0.200 5.000 0 93.2 85 115 Sodium 991 100 1,000 0 99.1 50 150 Thallium 2.27 0.200 2.500 0 90.7 85 115 Zinc 100 1.50 100.0 0 100 85 115 Sample ID: 1604116-001CDUP SampType: DUP Units: Ng/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016 RunNo: 28822 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 13468 Analysis Date: 4/15/2016 SegNo: 541794 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Antimony 0.202 0.200 0.4710 80.1 30 R Arsenic ND 1.00 0 30 Barium 38.1 0.500 37.74 0.955 30 Beryllium ND 0.200 0 30 Cadmium ND 0.200 0 30 Chromium 0.722 0.500 0.5610 25.1 30 Copper ND 0.500 0.5540 10.9 30 Iron ND 100 0 30 Lead ND 1.00 0 30 Manganese 5.17 2.00 5.155 0.320 30 Nickel 0.939 0.500 0.7520 22.1 30 Selenium ND 1.00 0 30 Silver ND 0.200 0 30 Sodium 54,300 100 57,370 5.44 30 Thallium ND 0.200 0 30 Zinc 2.95 1.50 2.528 15.5 30 NOTES: m R - High RPD observed. The method is in control as indicated by the LCS. rt Revision v1 Page 17 of 29 J Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) j ,�,J► Fremont Work Order: 1604140 CLIENT: Shannon & Wilson Project: Madrona K-8 School Date: 412112016 QC SUMMARY REPORT Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8 Sample ID: 1604116-001CMS SampType: MS Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016 RunNo: 28822 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 13468 Analysis Date: 4/1512016 SegNo: 541795 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Antimony 22.8 0.200 25.00 0.4710 89.3 70 130 Arsenic 532 1.00 500.0 0.8205 106 70 130 Barium 530 0.500 500.0 37.74 98.5 70 130 Beryllium 24.9 0.200 25.00 0 99.7 70 130 Cadmium 28.0 0.200 25.00 0.01600 112 70 130 Chromium 517 0.500 500.0 0.5610 103 70 130 Copper 489 0.500 500.0 0.5540 97.8 70 130 Iron 5,250 100 5,000 45.56 104 50 150 Lead 220 1.00 250.0 0.07550 87.9 70 130 Manganese 508 2.00 500.0 5.155 100 70 130 Nickel 492 0.500 500.0 0.7520 98.3 70 130 Selenium 51.5 1.00 50.00 0 103 70 130 Silver 17.0 0.200 25.00 0 67.8 70 130 S Sodium 60,500 100 5,000 57,370 62.9 50 150 Thallium 11.2 0.200 12.50 0.006500 89.4 70 130 Zinc 508 1.50 500.0 2.528 101 70 130 NOTES: S - Outlying spike recovery(ies) observed. A duplicate analysis was performed and recovered within range. Sample ID: 1604116-001CMSD SampType: MSD Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016 RunNo: 28822 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 13468 Analysis Date: 4/15/2016 SegNo: 541796 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Antimony 22.7 0.200 25.00 0.4710 89.1 70 130 22.79 0.171 30 Arsenic 525 1.00 500.0 0.8205 105 70 130 531.7 1.30 30 Barium 522 0.500 500.0 37.74 96.9 70 130 530.4 1.55 30 Beryllium 24.0 0.200 25.00 0 96.0 70 130 24.92 3.79 30 Cadmium 27.9 0.200 25.00 0.01600 111 70 130 28.03 0.560 30 m Chromium 497 0.500 500.0 0.5610 99.4 70 130 516.6 3.79 30 X Copper 482 0.500 500.0 0.5540 96.3 70 130 489.4 1.55 30 CD Iron 5.310 100 5,000 45.56 105 50 150 5,246 1.13 30 (Q Revision v1 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) Fremont " F7" .. . Work Order: 1604140 CLIENT: Shannon & Wilson Project: Madrona K-8 School Date: 4/21/2016 QC SUMMARY REPORT Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8 Sample ID: 1604116-001CMSD SampType: MSD Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016 RunNo: 28822 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 13468 Analysis Date: 4/15/2016 SegNo: 541796 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Lead 216 1.00 250.0 0.07550 86.4 70 130 219.8 1.76 30 Manganese 507 2.00 500.0 5.155 100 70 130 507.5 0.177 30 Nickel 493 0.500 500.0 0.7520 98.4 70 130 492.2 0.156 30 Selenium 49.2 1.00 50.00 0 98.3 70 130 51.48 4.62 30 Silver 18.7 0.200 25.00 0 75.0 70 130 16.96 10.0 30 Sodium 60,100 100 5,000 57,370 54.7 50 150 60,510 0.679 30 Thallium 11.1 0.200 12.50 0.006500 88.5 70 130 11.18 1.03 30 Zinc 507 1.50 500.0 2.528 101 70 130 508.0 0.150 30 m 0 X CD rt Revision v1 w co Page 19 of 29 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) Fremont Work Order: 1604140 CLIENT: Shannon & Wilson Project: Madrona K-8 School Date: 412112016 QC SUMMARY REPORT Mercury by EPA Method 245.1 Sample ID: MB-13469 SampType: MBLK Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/18/2016 RunNo: 28842 Client ID: MBLKW Batch ID: 13469 Analysis Date: 4/18/2016 SegNo: 542145 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Mercury ND 0.100 Sample ID: LCS-13469 SampType: LCS Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/18/2016 RunNo: 28842 Client ID: LCSW Batch ID: 13469 Analysis Date: 411812016 SegNo: 542146 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qua] Mercury 2.27 0.100 2.500 0 90.8 85 115 Sample ID: 1604092-001ADUP SampType: DUP Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/1812016 RunNo: 28842 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 13469 Analysis Date: 4/18/2016 SegNo: 542148 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Mercury ND 0.100 0 20 Sample ID: 1604092-001AMS SampType: MS Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/18/2016 RunNo: 28842 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 13469 Analysis Date: 4/18/2016 SegNo: 542149 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Mercury 2.41 0.100 2.500 0 96.4 80 120 Sample ID: 1604092-001AMSD SampType: MSD Units: NgIL Prep Date: 4/18/2016 RunNo: 28842 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 13469 Analysis Date: 4/18/2016 SegNo: 542150 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual y m 0 X CD rt cc — W I Revision v1 2.40 0.100 2.500 0 96.0 80 120 2.410 0.416 20 Pane 2n of 29 p> 1 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) •'�+, p' Fremont iME, 171ra "I, A Work Order: 1604140 CLIENT: Shannon & Wilson Project: Madrona K-8 School Date: 412112016 QC SUMMARY REPORT Diesel and Heavy Oil by NWTPH-Dx/Dx Ext. Sample ID: MB-13481 SampType: MBLK Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/18/2016 RunNo: 28866 Client ID: MBLKW Batch ID: 13481 Analysis Date: 4/19/2016 SegNo: 542740 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Diesel (Fuel Oil) ND 50.0 Heavy Oil ND 100 Surr:2-Fluorobiphenyl 50.6 80.00 63.3 50 150 Surr: o-Terphenyl 53.8 80.00 67.3 50 150 Sample ID: LCS-13481 SampType: LCS Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/1812016 RunNo: 28866 Client ID: LCSW Batch ID: 13481 Analysis Date: 4/19/2016 SegNo: 542739 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Diesel (Fuel Oil) 676 50.0 1,000 0 67.6 65 135 Surr:2-Fluorobiphenyl 58.8 80.00 73.5 50 150 Surr: o-Terphenyl 60.5 80.00 75.6 50 150 Sample ID: 1604132-002BDUP SampType: DUP Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/18/2016 RunNo: 28866 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 13481 Analysis Date: 4/19/2016 SegNo: 542716 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Diesel (Fuel Oil) ND 51.8 0 30 Diesel Range Organics (C12-C24) 559 51.8 459.7 19.5 30 Heavy Oil 2,270 104 878.6 88.5 30 R Surr:2-Fluorobiphenyl 65.9 82.88 79.6 50 150 0 Surr: o-Terphenyl 59.4 82.88 71.6 50 150 0 NOTES: R - High RPD observed. The method is in control as indicated by the LCS. DRO - Indicates the presence of unresolved compounds eluting from dodecane through tetracosane (C12-C24). m 0 X CD rt cQ Revision v1 w co Page 21 of 29 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) ►cw,�r�L Fremont J Work Order: 1604140 CLIENT: Shannon & Wilson Project: Madrona K-8 School Date: 412112016 QC SUMMARY REPORT Diesel and Heavy Oil by NWTPH-Dx/Dx Ext. Sample ID: 1604140-001BMS SampType: MS Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/18/2016 RunNo: 28866 Client ID: OW-1-041416 Batch ID: 13481 Analysis Date: 4/20/2016 SegNo: 542718 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Diesel (Fuel Oil) 668 49.9 998.9 37.33 63.2 65 135 S Surr:2-Fluorobiphenyl 59.0 79.91 73.8 50 150 Surr: o-Terphenyl 58.9 79.91 73.7 50 150 NOTES: S - Outlying spike recovery(ies) observed. A duplicate analysis was performed and recovered within range. Sample ID: 1604140-001BMSD SampType: MSD Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/18/2016 RunNo: 28866 Client ID: OW-1-041416 Batch ID: 13481 Analysis Date: 4/20/2016 SegNo: 542719 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Diesel (Fuel Oil) 714 49.8 996.3 37.33 67.9 65 135 668.4 6.56 30 Surr:2-Fluorobiphenyl 59.8 79.71 75.1 50 150 0 0 Surr: o-Terphenyl 61.5 79.71 77.2 50 150 0 0 Sample ID: 1604155-005EDUP SampType: DUP Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/18/2016 RunNo: 28866 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 13481 Analysis Date: 4/20/2016 SegNo: 542729 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Diesel (Fuel Oil) Heavy Oil Surr: 2-Fluorobi phenyl Surr: o-Terphenyl m 0 X CD rt (Q u, Revision v1 co V ND ND 55.2 56.7 50.0 100 79.97 79.97 69.0 50 150 70.9 50 150 0 0 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) 0 0 30 30 C7 Paoe 22 of 29 p� i��_ ► Fremont mil,-,7.-_:� y Work Order: 1604140 CLIENT: Shannon & Wilson Project: Madrona K-8 School Date: 412112016 QC SUMMARY REPORT Gasoline by NWTPH-Gx Sample ID: LCS-R28812 SampType: LCS Units: pq/L Prep Date: 4/14/2016 RunNo: 28812 Client ID: LCSW Batch ID: R28812 Analysis Date: 4/14/2016 SegNo: 541564 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Gasoline 502 50.0 500.0 0 100 65 135 Surr: Toluene-d8 24.4 25.00 97.8 65 135 Surr:4-Bromofluorobenzene 25.0 25.00 99.9 65 135 Sample ID: MB-R28812 SampType: MBLK Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/14/2016 RunNo: 28812 Client ID: MBLKW i Batch ID: R28812 Analysis Date: 4/14/2016 SegNo: 541565 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Gasoline ND 50.0 Surr: Toluene-d8 24.9 25.00 99.8 65 135 Surr:4-Bromofluorobenzene 24.9 25.00 99.7 65 135 Sample ID: 1602099-051AMS SampType: MS Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016 RunNo: 28812 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: R28812 Analysis Date: 4/15/2016 SegNo: 541555 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Gasoline 540 50.0 500.0 0 108 65 135 H Surr: Toluene-d8 25.2 25.00 101 65 135 H Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 25.4 25.00 101 65 135 H Sample ID: 1602099-051AMSD SampType: MSD Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016 RunNo: 28812 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: R28812 Analysis Date: 4/15/2016 SegNo: 541556 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual JUI I . 1 VIUC1=-U0 Surr:4-Bromofluorobenzene m 0 X CD rt cQ Revision v1 w co co Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) 557 50.0 500.0 0 111 65 135 540.1 3.07 30 H 24.6 25.00 98.2 65 135 0 0 H 24.6 25.00 98.6 65 135 0 0 H Page 23 of 29 F-1 Fremont MW ff., M#i MAV7771111 Work Order: 1604140 CLIENT: Shannon & Wilson Project: Madrona K-8 School Date: 412112016 QC SUMMARY REPORT Gasoline by NWTPH-Gx Sample ID: 1604115-005ADUP SampType: DUP Units: Ng/L Prep Date: 4/1512016 RunNo: 28812 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: R28812 Analysis Date: 4/15/2016 SegNo: 541558 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Gasoline ND 50.0 0 30 Surr: Toluene-l8 25.0 25.00 99.8 65 135 0 0 Surr:4-Bromofluorobenzene 25.4 25.00 101 65 135 0 0 m 0 X CD rt (Q Revision v1 co tO Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) Paoe 24 of 29 p� El Fremont Work Order: 1604140 CLIENT: Shannon & Wilson Project: Madrona K-8 School Date: 412112016 QC SUMMARY REPORT Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260C Sample ID: LCS-R28811 SampType: LCS Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/14/2016 RunNo: 28811 Client ID: LCSW Batch ID: R28811 Analysis Date: 4/1412016 SegNo: 541551 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Benzene 17.2 1.00 20.00 0 86.1 69.3 132 Toluene 19.3 1.00 20.00 0 96.4 61.3 145 Ethylbenzene 18.2 1.00 20.00 0 91.1 72 130 m,p-Xylene 37.0 1.00 40.00 0 92.6 70.3 134 o-Xylene 18.6 1.00 20.00 0 93.0 72.1 131 Surr: Dibromofluoromethane 23.1 25.00 92.2 45.4 152 Surr: Toluene-d8 27.4 25.00 110 40.1 139 Surr:1-Bromo-4-fluorobenzene 25.6 25.00 102 64.2 128 Sample ID: MB-1128811 SampType: MBLK Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/14/2016 RunNo: 28811 Client ID: MBLKW Batch ID: R28811 Analysis Date: 4/14/2016 SegNo: 541552 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Benzene ND 1.00 Toluene ND 1.00 Ethylbenzene ND 1.00 m,p-Xylene ND 1.00 o-Xylene ND 1.00 Surr: Dibromofluoromethane 26.0 25.00 104 45.4 152 Surr: Toluene-d8 23.7 25.00 94.9 40.1 139 Surr:1-Bromo-4-fluorobenzene 24.6 25.00 98.3 64.2 128 Sample ID: 1602099-051AMS SampType: MS Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/14/2016 RunNo: 28811 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: R28811 Analysis Date: 4/14/2016 SegNo: 541536 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Benzene m Toluene Ethylbenzene m,p-Xylene cQ Revision v1 0 0 20.1 1.00 20.00 0 101 65.4 138 18.4 1.00 20.00 0 91.8 64 139 19.5 1.00 20.00 0 97.4 64.5 136 39.9 1.00 40.00 0 99.8 63.3 135 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) H H H H - o> Page 25 of 29 j ,�Fr,Fremont 1_ 4F.' f M1170 7 1111 Work Order: 1604140 CLIENT: Shannon & Wilson Project: Madrona K-8 School Date: 4/21/2016 QC SUMMARY REPORT Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260C Sample ID: 1602099-051AMS SampType: MS Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/14/2016 RunNo: 28811 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: R28811 Analysis Date: 4/14/2016 SegNo: 541536 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual o-Xylene 20.0 1.00 20.00 0 100 65.4 134 H Surr: Dibromofluoromethane 26.3 25.00 105 45.4 152 H Surr: Toluene-d8 24.1 25.00 96.4 40.1 139 H Surr:1-Bromo-4-fluorobenzene 24.9 25.00 99.8 64.2 128 H Sample ID: 1602099-051AMSD SampType: MSD Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/14/2016 RunNo: 28811 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: R28811 Analysis Date: 4/14/2016 SegNo: 541537 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Benzene 20.3 1.00 20.00 0 101 65.4 138 20.12 0.693 30 H Toluene 18.4 1.00 20.00 0 92.0 64 139 18.36 0.218 30 H Ethylbenzene 20.8 1.00 20.00 0 104 64.5 136 19.48 6.41 30 H m,p-Xylene 41.5 1.00 40.00 0 104 63.3 135 39.90 3.88 30 H o-Xylene 20.8 1.00 20.00 0 104 65.4 134 20.02 3.92 30 H Surr: Dibromofluoromethane 25.9 25.00 104 45.4 152 0 0 H Surr: Toluene-d8 23.8 25.00 95.1 40.1 139 0 0 H Surr:1-Bromo-4-fluorobenzene 25.5 25.00 102 64.2 128 0 0 H Sample ID: 1604115-005ADUP SampType: DUP Units: Ng/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016 RunNo: 28811 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: R28811 Analysis Date: 4/15/2016 SegNo: 541544 Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Benzene ND 1.00 0 30 Toluene ND 1.00 0 30 Ethylbenzene ND 1.00 0 30 m,p-Xylene ND 1.00 0 30 o-Xylene ND 1.00 0 30 n Surr: Dibromofluoromethane 25.5 25.00 102 45.4 152 0 CCD rt Surr: Toluene-d8 23.1 25.00 92.4 40.1 139 0 Surr:1-Bromo-4-fluorobenzene 24.9 25.00 99.4 64.2 128 0 C4 .41 Revision v1 0 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) Fremont Work Order: 1604140 CLIENT: Shannon & Wilson Project: Madrona K-8 School Date: 4/21/2016 QC SUMMARY REPORT Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260C Sample ID: 1604115-005ADUP SampType: DUP Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016 RunNo: 28811 Nent ID: BATCH Batch ID: R28811 Analysis Date: 4/15/2016 SegNo: 541544 analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit Highl-imit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Revision v1 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) G7 Page 27 of 29 6.1.a Fremont t, rr � �., rd"MiWrtrf 7■ Sample Log -In Check List Client Name: SW Work Order Number: 1604140 Logged by: Erica Silva Date Received: 4/14/2016 4:07:00 PM Chain of Custody 1. Is Chain of Custody complete? Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Present ❑ 2. How was the sample delivered? Client Lop In 3. Coolers are present? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA El 4. Shipping container/cooler in good condition? Yes C No ❑ 5. Custody Seals present on shipping container/cooler? Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Required (Refer to comments for Custody Seals not intact) 6. Was an attempt made to cool the samples? Yes EVI No ❑ NA ❑ 7. Were all items received at a temperature of >0°C to 10.0°C * Yes EVI No ❑ NA ❑ 8. Sample(s) in proper container(s)? Yes V No El 9. Sufficient sample volume for indicated test(s)? Yes EVI No 10. Are samples properly preserved? Yes V No ❑ 11. Was preservative added to bottles? Yes EVI No ❑ NA ❑ H2SO4 to 001 H 12. Is there headspace in the VOA vials? Yes ❑ No V NA ❑ 13. Did all samples containers arrive in good condition (unbroken)? Yes No ❑ 14. Does paperwork match bottle labels? Yes No ❑ 15. Are matrices correctly identified on Chain of Custody? Yes ❑d No ❑ 16. Is it clear what analyses were requested? Yes L No El 17. Were all holding times able to be met? Yes EI/I No ❑ 5necial Flandlina !if awIicable 18. Was client notified of all discrepancies with this order? Yes D. No ❑ NA ❑d Person Notified: Date: By Whom: Via: ❑ eMail ❑ Phone ❑, Fax ❑ In Person Regarding: Client Instructions 19. Additional remarks: Item Information Item # Temp °C Cooler 5.0 Sample 4.2 Temp Blank 24 * Note: DoD/ELAP and TNI require items to be received at 4°C +/- 2°C Revision v1 Page 28 of 29 Packet Pg. 403 (;uawooeldeN looyog euoapew : MV0 s; OMpe;;e 4;inn podaa 1je}s 90V LZ009WN-ld :;uOwliVelIV Chain of Custody Record mF�emont i in, eume is 360b Frenioutt Aare nf. 7d: 206-M37M .41�l Date: 1 I �" fP paw er Seott/e, WA MO3 Fay. 2O&M2-172 JM f Prol" Mame: A &o&- K — SA,wo l 5 ,trc G� rl oilattt: D rr< �t 3 +w PnOW HO: 4 ( -I _ Let 09.2_ 00 3 toweled by: Vo..� t&Cte At rM- s�oa A) Lool t: jed W- _less C ty, state. Zip: �e fe I.�i $ Q aOPmt Ta (PM): r R-If 1�Q yf• 4d e-G Telephone -= - S-Tv $ fare ?."`_6qS=G '7 7 7 PM Email: _ P V 4 e j*4 w14! re- . ".A4 ' M1at+1s Codes: A - M, Aq =Aqueous, a = sulk, O = Other, P- Product, S =Solt, SD = Sedime.M SL - 50gd, W - Water, DW = Ddnking WaWr, GW = Ground Water, SW . Storm Water, W W = Waste Water 1 dw f- 044f4fig 9 10 "Metpls Analysis (Cwe): MTCA-5 •••Asdons (C rdej: Nitralg, C 1b k Sample- Sample ST pek Date llme (M;lb-s]' (/V�' 4b RCRA-8 1=1 eetumtpclient 4atei'ime Date/nme PfkwIbyPollutaras TAIL fndlvidUd.• I I 3 Hato Bromide O-Phosehate W Dbpnsat by tab (A tee My to I f? /16194 x x lv/"P catoCo Cr C! ie Hg N Mg t r�irrNitrrte T--arcsclnd c crvcd after 4=pm wilR begin 30d."j an the fOaaMng bu_wless day_ A&Ar V2,, lal Renarks: re"i43t ' 'Ta ►te#y yak, e-4rf11 pk,,tr_ 4 SameDae NexUW 2 Day 3 Day i711etr111MA n: WNitr - Ub, Yellow -File, Pink • OrtglneWr www.fremontana Ivtical.com 6.1.a SHANNON%WILSON, INC. 21-1-22082-003 E 0 0 z Co 0 c 0 L C M T N C t V t 3 0 Q. CD L N m C Q ti N O O T 0 N Z J a c m E 0 Q Packet Pg. 405 6.1.a SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Attachment to and part of Report 21-1-22082-003 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Date: June 28, 2016 To: IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT CONSULTING SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND FOR SPECIFIC CLIENTS. Consultants prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for a civil engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, your consultant prepared your report expressly for you and expressly for the purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report for its intended purpose without first conferring with the consultant. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the consultant. THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS. A geotechnical/environmental report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a unique set of project -specific factors. Depending on the project, these may include: the general nature of the structure and property involved; its size and configuration; its historical use and practice; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; other improvements such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope -of -service limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly problems, ask the consultant to evaluate how any factors that change subsequent to the date of the report may affect the recommendations. Unless your consultant indicates otherwise, your report should not be used: (1) when the nature of the proposed project is changed (for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one, or chemicals are discovered on or near the site); (2) when the size, elevation, or configuration of the proposed project is altered; (3) when the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified; (4) when there is a change of ownership; or (5) for application to an adjacent site. Consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that may occur if they are not consulted after factors which were considered in the development of the report have changed. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE. Subsurface conditions may be affected as a result of natural processes or human activity. Because a geotechnical/environmental report is based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be based on a report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Ask the consultant to advise if additional tests are desirable before construction starts; for example, groundwater conditions commonly vary seasonally. Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical/environmental report. The consultant should be kept apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary. MOST RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS. Site exploration and testing identifies actual surface and subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The data were extrapolated by your consultant, who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations, you and your consultant can work together to help reduce their impacts. Retaining your consultant to observe subsurface construction operations can be particularly beneficial in this respect. Page 1 of 2 1/2016 Packet Pg. 406 6.1.a A REPORT'S CONCLUSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY. The conclusions contained in your consultant's report are preliminary because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork; therefore, you should retain your consultant to observe actual conditions and to provide conclusions. Only the consultant who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's recommendations based on those conclusions are valid and whether or not the contractor is abiding by applicable recommendations. The consultant who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of the report's recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction. THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION. Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretation of a geotechnical/environmental report. To help avoid these problems, the consultant should be retained to work with other project design professionals to explain relevant geotechnical, geological, hydrogeological, and environmental findings, and to review the adequacy of their plans and specifications relative to these issues. BORING LOGS AND/OR MONITORING WELL DATA SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT. Final boring logs developed by the consultant are based upon interpretation of field logs (assembled by site personnel), field test results, and laboratory and/or office evaluation of field samples and data. Only final boring logs and data are customarily included in geotechnical/environmental reports. These final logs should not, under any circumstances, be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. To reduce the likelihood of boring log or monitoring well misinterpretation, contractors should be given ready access to the complete geotechnical engineering/environmental report prepared or authorized for their use. If access is provided only to the report prepared for you, you should advise contractors of the report's limitations, assuming that a contractor was not one of the specific persons for whom the report was prepared, and that developing construction cost estimates was not one of the specific purposes for which it was prepared. While a contractor may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party, the contractor should discuss the report with your consultant and perform the additional or alternative work believed necessary to obtain the data specifically appropriate for construction cost estimating purposes. Some clients hold the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors helps prevent costly construction problems and the adversarial attitudes that aggravate them to a disproportionate scale. READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY. Because geotechnical/environmental engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against consultants. To help prevent this problem, consultants have developed a number of clauses for use in their contracts, reports, and other documents. These responsibility clauses are not exculpatory clauses designed to transfer the consultant's liabilities to other parties; rather, they are definitive clauses that identify where the consultant's responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your report, and you are encouraged to read them closely. Your consultant will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions. The preceding paragraphs are based on information provided by the ASFE/Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, Silver Spring, Maryland Page 2 of 2 1/2016 Packet Pg. 407 6.1.a C r a Packet Pg. 408 6.1.a A M "11muff 44 11415 NE 1281h St Suite 110 Kirkland WA 98034 ■ (425)820-3420 + FAX (425)820-3437 www.americanforestmanagement.com May 17, 2016 Ms. Taine Wilton Capital Projects Office Edmonds School District #15 20420 -68th Ave W. Lynnwood, WA 98036 Dear Ms. Wilton: RECEiVE0 'JUN 10 2016 DEVELOPMENT SERVICE;E COUNTER Re: Madrona K-8 School Project Tree Survey Per the terms of our Proposal dated December 10, 2015 and the associated Purchase Order #2001500154 dated December 14, 2015 we are pleased to present our Madrona K-8 School Project Tree Survey and Assessment. Competence American Forest Management and its predecessor, International Forestry Consultants, Inc. has been practicing urban forestry since 1999. The survey and assessment was carried out by Tom Hanson, RCA /TRAQ and Kelly Wilkinson, TRAQ. Tom is certified by the International Society of Arboriculture and is a Registered Consulting Arborist by the American Society of Consulting Arborists. He has been practicing arboricultural consulting since 1999. He has been a practicing consulting forester in Washington since 197land is TRAQ (Tree Risk Assessor Qualified) by the International Society of Arboriculture. Kelly is also certified by the International Society of Arboriculture and is Tree Risk Assessor Qualified. She has been practicing urban forestry for three years. Description The subject trees were indicated on maps prepared by Pace Engineering Company, Kirkland, Washington. The trees include those in and around the existing campus buildings and in a 10-foot wide range around the perimeter of the School site, including Madrona K-8 and the current Lynndale (Woodway) Elementary School. The trees include a mix of native coniferous and deciduous species along with a few non- native ornamentals within the building areas. Madrona School stands on a ridge with the 11Page American Forest Management, Inc Attachment12 P LN20160027 Packet Pg. 409 Madrona School Tree Assessments January 19, 2016 6.1.a majority of the trees around the perimeter, just over the edge. At Lynndale, the school stands in a valley with the majority of the trees uphill, slightly up the valley edge. Methodolcy Each tree indicated on the maps was visited and identified with a numbered aluminum tag. The trees were assessed under TRAQ (Tree Risk Assessor Qualified) level 2 assessment methods (visual inspection). This assessment is valid for the conditions of the tree and site on the date of inspection and does not consider future construction issues, if any. Therefore, assessment of targets was not done. We recommend a three-year or post construction reassessment. r-r-mr r, 2 Assess -mrEl"ON, Ir a Locate a6d Identify Subj&t Trczs o Dctcrmi i1 o T2TgCt s + Asse s "Free lic�,Jth • IT3 pect: ocular, mall, pI'ob s cte. • Record Observations: defects, site emiditions, gTo-vvth gates ■ Dctemtinc the Likelihood and consequences of failure ■ Dctcrmine Level .af Risk + RQwt'CIinend Mitigation i,f.appropriate • Sue fit re -inspection levels Tree Assessment included: • Species identification • Measured for Diameter at 4.5 feet above ground (DBH) + Total height by hypsometer • Extent of live limbs (Dripline) ■ Live green crown estimated • TRAQ Level 2 Assessment ■ Description of defects and tree vigor In some instances, trees not shown on the maps but within the stated survey area were added. Please refer to the attached Exhibits: 1. Tree Assessment Table 2. Glossary of Commonly Used Terms 3. Descriptive Photographs 4. Tree Protection and Mitigation Guidelines 2 1 P a g e American Forest Management, Inc. Packet Pg. 410 Madrona School Tree Assessments 6.1.a January, 19, 2016 Observations and Discussion Over the entire project, 554 trees were assessed as indicated in the following table. Of those we are recommending the removal of 32 due to conditions leading to imminent failure. In general, the coniferous trees are about 50 years in age. Many of the deciduous alder trees are significantly younger, having naturally regenerated after original site construction. Overall, tree health and vigor is good with few significant defects. In the case of dead or highly defective trees, we have recommended removals for safety sake. Defects are generally limited to forked trunks, or broken trunks. We did find indications of root disease in several deciduous trees as noted on the tree summary. We also observed areas of conifer root disease beyond the assessment area and noted those on the maps. Recommendations Rules of Thumb for tree protections during construction projects typically suggest no activity within the drip lines of trees. However this should be considered on a tree by tree basis during the design phase and monitored during and after construction. We were specifically asked to consider the opportunities for tree relocation and/or protection for trees within the building campus area. In general, we would recommend that re -location not be attempted, and at the same time, the preparation of tree -specific protections to be incorporated into the design phase. Limiting Conditions This assessment is made subject to Level 2 TRAQ assessment guidelines and represents our observations on the date of the inspection. The assessment is valid for no more than 3 years. There is no warranty suggested for any of the trees subject to this report. Weather, latent tree conditions, and future man -caused activities could cause physiologic changes and deteriorating tree condition. Over time, deteriorating tree conditions may appear and there may be conditions, which are not now visible which, could cause tree failure. This report or the verbal comments made at the site in no way warrant the structural stability or long term condition of any tree, but represent my opinion based on the observations made. Nearly all trees in any condition standing within reach of improvements or human use areas represent hazards that could lead to damage or injury. 3 1 P a g e American Forest Management, Inc. Packet Pg. 411 Madrona School Tree Assessments January 19, 2016 6.1.a Respectfully Submitted, 7Z. Tom Hanson CF, RCA, TRAQ 4 1 P a g e American Forest Management, Ii Packet Pg. 412 6.1.a Exhibits 1. Tree Assessment Table 2. Glossary of Commonly Used Terms 3. Descriptive Photographs 4. Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan Packet Pg. 413 Tree Assessment Summary Form American Forest Management For. Madrona School Date: January 2015 Inspectors: Tom Hanson and Kelly Wilkinson Tree # Species DBH (inches) Height (feet) Crown Ratio N Dripline Defects Recommendations N E S W 1 Douglas -fir 24 117 60 2 4 22 12 oitchy bole retain 2 Douglas -fir 27 119 60 8 18 20 22 pitchy bole retain 3 Douglas -fir 21 111 70 18 22 10 20 basal pitching mtaln 4 western red cedar 15 38 70 13 14 17 11 3' basalseam retain s Douglas -fir 20 80 60 17 19 16 10 retain 6 Douglas -fir 29 110 70 21 16 20 23 retain 7 western hemlock 21 75 70 16 4 18 19 rrtaln 8 western red cedar 22 62 70 10 14 15 6 retain 9 Dou as -fir i8 94 80 8 6 20 17 retain 10 western red cedar 15 54 80 12 12 12 13 pencil rot retain 11 Douglas -fir 28 122 70 27 27 14 12 pitchy retain 12 Douglas -fir 16 81 1 60 14 19 13 6 1 retain 13 Douglas -fir 33 120 60 20 27 29 30 retain 14 pacific madrone 9 38 40 4 4 13 21 20%dieback retain 1s pacific madrpne 11, 9, 7 35 5o 6 10 28 18 decay, 20%dieback, trunk wound retain 16 western red cedar 22 66 so 12 13 12 14 fork at 25. pencil rot retain 17 pacific madrone 14,12 76 70 40 12 6 33 minor basal decay- 20%dieback retain 18 Douglas -fir 31 119 SD 26 25 21 21 pitchv retain 19 birch 9 25 30 8 1 10 10 13 dead top, fungus remove 20 Douglas -fir 24 91 50 14 12 19 1 20 forks at 6' retain 21 Douglas -fir 13 53 50 14 4 2 16 pink conks remove 22 Douglas -fir 25 107 70 23 13 10 21 retain 23 Douglas -fir 21 95 50 18 16 18 14 fork at 50' retain 24 pacific madrone 12 56 50 14 12 16 18 40%dieback, basal scar retain 25 pacific madrone 12 64 20 1 13 26 15 30%dieback retain 26 Douglas -fir 27 113 70 20 14 20 22 retain 27 Douglas -fir 18 96 70 1 15 15 18 24 retain 28 Douglas -fir 33 110 70 21 25 26 24 pitchy retain 29 Douglas -fir 24 109 60 18 20 22 18 pitchy retain 30 Douglas -fir 26 114 70 22 14 18 18 butt swell, pitchy retain 31 Douglas -fir 27 104 60 23 18 18 20 retain 32 Douglas -fir 28 ill s0 20 21 22 21 forked retain 33 pacific madrone 11 5.5 49 60 6 6 25 15 retain 34 pine 7 1 39 70 4 8 10 6 retain 35 pacific dogwood 6, 4, 8 36 70 15 16 23 20 three dead stems retain 36 pacific madrone 19 56 30 8 26 18 15 hollow stem to 20', fungal conks, 40%dieback remove 37 Dou las-fir 18 110 .1115 13 9 13 retain 38 western red cedar 16 53 90 1 12 12 12 13 minor pencil rot retain 39 Douglas -fir 24 110 so 15 8 9 12 retain 40 Douglas -fir 21 106 50 18 8 18 11 flat side retain 41 Douglas -fir 15 81 70 10 15 20 4 retain 42 Douglas -fir 14 94 60 9 10 12 8 retain 43 pacific madrone 11 63 30 0 26 0 18 bole decav, 50% dieback remove 44 Douglas -fir 25 96 70 13 23 9 21 pitchy, swollen butt retain 45 padfc madrone 10,7 38 70 12 12 16 6 30%dleback, bole decay remove 46 Douglas -fir 19 82 50 10 14 12 8 retain 47 pacific madrone 16.11 63 30 0 22 16 12 bole decay, 40%dieback retain 48 Douglas -fir 34 114 60 16 1 13 20 22 broken top. butt swell retain 49 Douglas -fir 28 120 40 18 16 14 14 butt swell retain 50 pacific madrone 9 42 10 2 0 1 0 0 bole decay, 90%dieback remove 51 Douglas -fir 24 90 40 13 6 1 15 10 broken top, heart rot retain 52 Douglas -fir 35 126 50 11 30 1 22 20 flat side retain 53 Pacific madrone 6 42 30 0 8 6 2 heart rot, 40%dieback retain 54 plum 9 22 70 14 12 14 7 former co -dominant stems retain 55 1plum 10 25 70 1 12 14 12 12 retain Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) Tree Assessment Summary Form American Forest Management ikF For. Madrona School Date: January 2015 inspectors: Tom Hanson and Kelly Wilkinson Tree # Species DBH (inches) Height (feet) Crown Ratio N Dripline Defects Recommendations N E S w 56 pacific dogwood 8, 5, 3.3 30 90 6 12 12 10 retain 57 European white birch 19 73 90 17 18 15 14 retain 58 plum 8 19 80 8 9 10 10 retain 59 maple 14 45 70 15 12 18 15 _ retain 60 Douglas -fir 19 81 80 12 16 20 18 retain 61 Douglas -fir 16 73 90 14 9 10 14 retain 62 Douglas -fir 30 115 60 13 22 20 18 retain 63 Douglas -fir 33 117 70 20 24 26 24 retain 64 Douglas -fir 27 118 70 26 1 18 12 16 retain 65 Douglas -fir 24 83 50 15 20 24 21 broken top retain 66 Douglas -fir 33 126 60 13 23 10 16 pitchy, swollen butt retain 67 Dp lw-fir 24 93 80 22 18 4 16 retain 68 bou las-fir 13 61 70 9 14 15 1 12 retain 69 European white birch 14 72 80 23 0 14 16 leans N retain 70 pacific madrone 10 47 70 8 8 0 26 ivy on trunk. 30% dieback. leans W retain 71 pacific madrone 8 29 7D 12 0 0 24 leans W retain 72 pacific madrone 11 41 60 8 8 0 28 leans W retain 73 pacific madrone 7 33 so 0 6 0 22 50%dieback retain 74 pacific madrone 9.6, 8 68 40 0 0 0 26 leans W retain 75 Douglas -fir 21 96 so 12 14 4 12 retain 76 Douglas -fir 23 105 60 4 14 12 25 retain 77 pacific madrone 10 28 70 0 0 0 38 leans W, 20%dieback retain 78 pacific madrone 6 26 1 40 0 0 0 30 scar on bole, decay, 30%dieback retain 79 DoughsAir 29 115 70 14 24 16 24 retain 80 pacific madrone 8 35 1 20 0 0 0 21 40%dieback retain 81 western red cedar 8, 8 32 1 90 10 2 1 15 forks at 2' retain 82 western red cedar 10- 32 90 8 2 8 6 retain 83 Douglas -fir 31 128 80 18 21 6 17 retain 84 Dou las-fir 32 114 70 12 20 22 12 retain 85 red alder 7, 6, 9 79 70 21 0 13. 24 forks at base retain 86 red alder 7 63 70 12 0 0 20 retain 87 red alder 7, 9, 5, 8 68 60 14 0 14 26 forks at base retain 88 red alder io 67 60 21 0 4 29 retain 69 red alder 12 85 70 10 0 9 26 leans W retain 90 red alder 12 88 70 12 0 16 23 lower trunk scars, minor decay retain 91 red alder 1.6 94 40 12 0 9 28 leans W retain 92 Douglas -fir 26 105 30 13 14 6 9 severe dieback, root rot remove 93 Dou las-flr 21 101 40 11 1 14 9 6 retain 94 red alder 15 85 40 8 0 10 30 leans W retain 95 Douglas -fir 34 134 40 12 19 13 14 retain 96 Douglas -fir 30 125 40 8 12 8 6 retain 97 Dou las-flr 24 126 50 7 16 8 6 retain 98 Dou las-fir 13 60 40 9 12 11 9 suppressed, narrow crown retain 99 Douglas -fir 29 123 6D 29 15 29 29 retain 100 Douglas -fir 21 98 40 16 6 16 8 retain 101 western hemlock 16 _ dead remove 102 western hemlock 44 132 60 16 11 10 16 retain 103 Do fir 39 136 80 24 14 32 28 retain 104 1 Douglas -fir 44 136 80 27 19 1 12 14 1 retain 105 Douglas -fir 29 128 50 22 21 15 16 retain 106 red alder 28 65 70 24 24 2 23 in butt, low risk, would fall away from school, has compartmentalized dec. retain 107 fed alder 1 13. 71 60 20 6 .0 24 decay at branch nodes. leans W remove 108 red alder 12 66 50 4 10 0 26 leans W retain 109 red alder 19 108 70 20 22 2 32 weak branch attachments, early stages of phVtopthera remove 110 red alder 14 112 50 10 0 21 24 1 retain Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) Tree Assessment Summary Form American Forest Management ,NF M For: Madrona School Date: January 2015 Inspectors: Tom Hanson and Kelly Wilkinson Tree # Species DBH (inches) Height (feet) Crown Ratio (%) Dripline Defects Recommendations N E S w 111 b[g leaf maple 24, 23, 7, 9, 4 94 70 19 10 25 22 forks at base, some Included bark retaln 112 red alder 11 62 70 20 0 16 26 crook, leans W retain 113 red alder 8 65 70 24 0 16 28 leans remove 114 red alder 10 72 50 4 0 4 24 leans W remove Us red alder 10 78 70 5 0 1 6 25 forks at 10'. leans W remove 116 bitter cherry 10 55 40 12 2 12 14 retain 117 red alder 12 68 SD 12 2 12 26 retain 118 red alder 13 87 70 10 6 12 20 retain 119 red alder 17 76 60 0 0 0 35 retain 120 red alder 28 109 60 14 10 16 20 in decline retain 121 red alder 13 68 50 12 0 12 24 retain 122 red alder 1L 7 67 70 12 0 20 24 leans W retain 123 red alder 8,8 62 80 9 0 9 20 forks at base, leans W retain 124 red alder 10 69 70 4 4 6 22 retain 125 red alder 15 72 so 4 10 12 14 thick ivy on trunk retain 126 willow 8.6.5.3 39 60 12 10 12 15 ivy on trunk retain 127 red alder 8 48 50 6 4 20 20 retain 128 Douglas -fir 19 86 40 14 14 14 18 broken top retain 129 Douglas -fir 24 121 5o 15 18 12 1,6 retain 130 Douglas -fir 31 118 60 14 23 20 26 retain 131 Douglas -fir 26 136 40 15 25 1 14 14 1 thin crown retain 132 Douglas -fir 31 132 50 31 26 18 18 thin crown retain 133 Douglas -fir 22 122 60 20 6 8 24 thin crown retain 134 willow 7 38 60 14 10 9 4 retain 135 willow 8 39 so 1 6 6 3 9 retain 136 willow 6 42 50 4 10 0 11 leans N retain 137 padfk rmadrone 18 49 30 10 7 9 5 dieback, heavy decay remove 138 Douglas -fir 16 57 80 12 10 14 14 _ retain 139 Pacific madrone 11 27 40 18 14 6 0 509G dieback remove 140 Douglas -fir 20 65 80 21 24 4 20 retain 141 Douglas -fir 10 49 8o 5 6 5 15 retain 142 Douglas -fir 13 55 80 5 9 21 18 retain 143 Douglas-flr 19 67 80 8 20 25 1s retain 144 Douglas -fir 18 62 70 21 21 8 21 thin crown retain 145 Douglas -fir 19 56 80 8 17 16 16 thin crown retaln 146 Douglas -fir 10 61 60 18 11 2 15 thin crown, pitchy. root rot _ remove 147 red alder 9 59 60 32 21 0 10 leans N retaln 149 western hemlock 11 42 1 20 18 6 3 4 dead top, thin crown _ remove 149 western hemlock 13 60 80 20 4 3 7 _ retain 150 deciduous 6,6 47 70 20 0 0 9 decay, crooks _ remove 151 Douglas -fir 10 68 30 8 5 4 5 root roL thin uuwn remove 152 Douglas -fir 15 80 40 16 8 8 9 root rot, thin crown remove 153 Dou as -fir 10 45 50 16 4 4 1 12 asymetricaI crown retaln 154 red alder 13 74 40 26 12 6 8 retain 155 red alder 12 85 50 27 0 20 14 retain 156 red alder 16 83 1 60 30 20 0 6 _ retain 157 red alder 86 40 30 5 0 23 retain 158 red alder 56 70 17 16 9 10 dead stems _ retain 159 red alder 64 70 31 16 16 20 retaln 160 willow H164 55 70 24 16 12 14 retain 161 red alder 39 60 20 14 2 12 retain 162 red alder 57 40 14 6 6 2 leans N retain 163 red alder 41 40 20 14 0 13 leans SW retain164 red alder 59 50 21 4 12 21 forks at 20' retain 165 Ired alder 6 38 50 16 8 6 14 retain _ Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) iu C1 0 X CD rt V Tree Assessment Summary Form American Forest Management AFMFor. Madrona School Date: January 2015 Inspectors: Tom Hanson and Kelly KriIkinson Tree # Species DBH (inches) Height (feet) Crown Ratio (%) Dripline Defects Recommendations N E S W 166 pacific madrone 17 83 70 34 15 4 15 retain 167 pacific madrone 6 41 40 29 14 0 0 leans N retain 168 willow 17 63 60 25 15 8 10 retain 169 red alder 6 30 30 23 0 0 13 dleback, lean E remove 170 red alder 6 dead remove 171 red alder S. 9 52 s0 18 18 6 9 dead wood, stem decay remove 172 red alder 11 73 70 29 16 0 17 retain 173 red alder 16 100 1 90 26 19 4 6 retain 174 western red cedar 12 38 80 14 7 9 4 retain 175 western red cedar 18 59 80 13 8 5 5 retain 176 western red cedar 12 60 70 16 8 7 2 retain 177 Douglas -fir 16 65 60 16 6 8 6 retain 178 western red cedar 10 57 80 14 12 0 14 1 retain 179 western red cedar 14 51 So 14 1D 10 1 retain 180 western red cedar 15 52 80 14 10 1 14 retain 191 western fed cedar 23 65 70 18 8 13 6 retain 182 western red cedar 15 52 70 14 6 6 4 retain 183 western red cedar 13 so 70 12 2 12 2 retain 184 western red cedar 16 46 80 18 6 8 14 retain 185 westem red cedar 10 34 So 12 6 12 12 retain 186 bitter cherry 9 41 1 60 16 4 5 15 retain 187 Dou as-flr 19 101 30 16 16 23 8 broken top retain 188 bitter cherry 7 42 50 12 10 4 1 14 retain 189 Douglas -fir 24 135 60 2D 12 26 2 thin crown retain 190 Douglas -fir 22 140 60 23 2 23 2 retain 191 Douglas -fir 33 159 s0 24 so 14 1s retain 192 Douglas -fir 19 120 40 19 19 16 6 retain 193 Douglas -fir 25 127 s0 18 25 18 6 broken top retain 194 pacific dogwood 16 36 1 70 16 16 14 0 co -dominant stems retain 195 willow 1s 62 60 14 21 13 0 retain 196 red alder 14 77 70 19 22 19 1 0 retain 197 black cottonwood 30 121 70 30 35 19 19 1 retain 198 red alder 15. 4. 5. 10 SOS 70 30 32 16 0 retain 199 red alder 22 105 60 26 55 30 0 retain 200 red alder 17 90 60 32 55 0 0 leans E retain 201 red alder 13 55 s0 19 51 22 0 leans E retain 202 red alder 20 127 1 60 19 36 27 0 retain 203 red alder 12 56 60 0 43 6 0 leans E retain 204 red alder 14 60 70 15 29 18 0 retain 205 red alder 16 69 60 6 35 19 0 retain 206 red alder 12 68 60 25 27 0 0 retain 207 red alder 17 120 70 17 34 21 0 1 former co -dominant stem broke off retain 208 red alder 14 88 70 23 26 21 0 retain 209 red alder 11 86 60 16 22 16 0 cracks In bole. decay remove 210 red alder 12 72 1 60 14 32 0 0 retain 211 red alder 15 81 60 17 35 0 0 retain 212 red alder 13 72 70 10 22 0 0 retain 213 red alder 8 68 70 14 10 0 0 retain 214 red alder 11 70 60 12 36 0 0 hollow knot retain 71; red alder 13 75 50 20 30 26 0 retain 216 red alder 16 69 50 10 25 14 0 rotten knot retain 217 red alder 16 75 60 16 28 13 0 crook, rotten knot retain 218 red alder 17 84 60 16 38 13 0 retain 219 red alder SS 76 70 25 31 1 12 0 rotten knot retain 220 pacific madrone 16 36 70 18 28 4 0 leans E, dead stems retain Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) Tree Assessment Summary Form American Forest Management AFM For: Madrona School Date: January 2015 Inspectors: Tom Hanson and Kelly Wilkinson Tree # Species DBH (inches) Height (feet) Crown Ratio (%) Dripline Defects Recommendations N E S W 221 willow 17 42 60 20 26 14 0 rotten remove 222 pacific madrone 17,9 53 50 10 33 13 0 leans E, 20%dieback _ retain 223 Do las-& 21 110 30 13 19 17 14 retain 224 Douglas -fir 42 146 90 24 28 22 22 pitchy, flat side retain 225 European white birch 6.6, 6 26 30 14 8 8 12 extensive deny remove 226 maple 20 51 70 18 18 21 17 minor heart rot retain 227 maple 16 38 70 16 15 15 14 forks at 6' retain 228 Douglas fir 23 105 50 22 8 8 20 Pitchy, conks Retain 229 Douglas fir 77 95 40 12 6 19 24 Retain 230 Douglas fir 21 100 50 6 8 18 16 Retain 231 red alder 15 62 80 21 14 18 14 Pytoothera remove 232 red alder 13 64 70 11 13 12 18 Retain 233 red alder 13 60 so 72 17 16 16 crook Retain 234 Hemlock 6 32 40 2 71 11 2 Retain 235 Douglas fir 7 42 70 1 8 6 10 6 Retain 236 western red cedar 16 40 80 12 11 6 14 Retain 237 western red cedar 18 37 80 20 14 14 Retain 238 Cherry 12, 10. 10 30 50 14 10 10 9 Retain 239 western red cedar 20 57 80 12 12 18 20 Cavities pencil rot Retain 240 Douglas fir 34 132 70 20 26 20 20 Pitchy Retain 241 Pacificmadrom 20 56 8D 12 1 24 14 0 10%die back Retain 242 Pacific madrone 14 55 50 22 20 0 20%die back Retain 243 Douglas fir 10 68 30 8 15 8 6 Retain 244 Douglas fir 12 67 50 12 14 10 6 Retain 245 Douglas fir 12 53 40 12 12 12 2 Retain 246 red alder 13 63 70 16 20 16 0 Cavity Retain 247 Douglas fir 8 37 30 9 10 7 0 Re taln 248 western red cedar 16,18 71 90 14 16 1 16 6 Fork at 3' Retain 249 Douill fir 18 80 60 12 22 16 14 Retain 250 red alder 15 62 60 0 22 0 Retain 251 red alder 11 55 70 0 4 22 30 Retain 252 red alder 5, 12, 7. 11 55 80 24 24 16 0 Retain 253 red alder 2.5 68 90 26 29 25 16 _ Retain 254 red alder 20 64 60 30 _ 32 32 14 Black knots Retain 255 Pacific madrone 19 90 20 10 39 24 0 20%die back Y Retain 256 Douglas fir 16 77 20 0 1 8 8 6 _ Retain 257 Douglas fir 39 124 60 18 34 24 78 Pltchv RCWIn 258 Douglas fir 44 134 70 30 28 22 20 Retain 259 DougJas fir 33 125 40 28 29 22 20 Retain 260 western red cedar 18 5o 80 20 17 16 16 Retain 261 Dedduous 24 75 80 16 18 18 20 Retain 262 Alaska yellow cedar 13 38 90 5 7 6 8 Retain 263 Deciduous 17 32 60 14 16 18 16 _ Retain 264 Deciduous 13 1 39 70 17 12 16 13 1 Decay cavity _� Retain 265 spruce 8 25 80 8 8 8 8 Retain I 266 Flowering Cherry 10, 5 11 70 7 12 15 8 Root decay. cannot be moved retain 1i 267 Flowering Cherry 7,4, 8, 6 12 20 17 17 16 14 Limb 6 decay & funbus conks retain 268 Flowering Cherry 7.7 12 70 8 12 11 10 Retain 269 Alaska yellow cedar 9 30 90 7 8 7 8 Retain 270 Alaska yellow cedar 7 30 90 5 6 6 6 Retain 271 N2ska yellow cedar 10 31 90 8 8 8 8 Retain 272 Evergreen white birch 1 16 1 52 70 13 14 19 13 Cannot be moved retain 273 laurel 1 5,9 22 80 6 6 retain 274 Laurel 6, 9 22 80 12 5 6 12 retain 275 Douglas fir 1 29 1 125 1 70 8 12 14 15 upper bole Pitchy — retain iu Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) Cf 0 X CD rt Tree Assessment Summary Form American Forest Management For. Madrona School Date: January 2015 Inspectors: Tom Hanson and Kelly Wilkinson Tree # Species DBH (inches) Height (feet) Crown Ratio (%) Dripline Defects Recommendations N E S W 276 Douglas fir 10 35 60 5 _11 12 10 retain 277 Douglas fir 22 83 40 6 7 22 18 Top broken out at 35' _ retain 278 Douglas fir 20,29 53 60 4 12 12 10 Too broken out _ retain ~_ 279 Douglas fir 19 91 30 7 16 12 9 retain 280 Grand fir 28 90 40 16 19 9 19 Retain 281 Grand fir 9 61 30 4 6 6 7 Retain 282 Douglas fir 14 82 30 6 8 8 7 Retain 293 Douglas fir 11 8o 20 9 8 4 8 Retain 284 western red cedar 13 43 90 9 10 12 13 Basal cavity at 2' Retain 285 Dou lasfir 9 35 70 9 10 9 11 Supressed Retain 286 Douglas fir 14 83 20 6 5 6 7 flat side, butt swel l Retain 287 Dou lasfir 23 97 40 117 10 12 Top broken out Retain 288 Douglas fir 21 112 30 9 13 12 10 Retain 289 Douglas fir 12 74 40 8 8 7 7 Retain 290 Douglas fir 12 70 60 8 14 12 6 Retain 291 Dou lasfir 10 16 30 6 12 s 15 Severe decay remove 292 Douglasfr 23 113 1 40 6 4 10 14 Retain 293 Douglas Fir 19 112 30 9 8 5 9 Retain 294 Douglas fir 22 114 30 6 7 8 6 Basalscar Retain 295 Douglas fir 25 121 40 9 11 10 1 8 butt swell, oitching Retain 296 Douglas fir 1s 68 50 13 13 12 1 8 Retain 297 Douglas fir 10 43 30 9 6 12 14 Retain 298 Douglas fir 12 74 20 12 6 7 9 Top broken out Retain 299 Douglas fir 11 68 20 9 6 7 7 1 Retain 300 Douglas fir 10 54 40 6 7 9 13 Retain 301 Douglas fir 26 129 5o 9 8 11 9 Retain 302 Pacific madrone 15 57 40 15 0 0 25 10%die back Retain 303 Pacific madrone 17 57 6o 31 4 2 6 Retain 304 Douglas fir 42 136 30 12 15 9 10 crack at 20' Retain 305 Douglas fir 24 116 5o 1s 32 18 10 Retain 306 Pacific madrone 15,13 55 40 18 38 8 10 10%die back Retain 307 Douglas -fir 1 9 33 8o 11 14 6 6 Retain 308 Douglas -fir 29 125 40 8 20 22 1 20 Retain 309 Douglas -fir 25 115 60 is 10 14 16 Retain 310 Pacific madrone 20 49 60 21 8 25 25 Retain 311 Dou as-flr 24 131 40 20 10 26 14 scar ontrutk Retain 312 Douglas -fir 28 150 40 26 21 20 is flat side, minor j)itching Retain 313 Pacficmadrone 11 62 70 13 0 13 17 leans Retain 314 Pacific madrone 7 61 50 SS 2 8 10 leans w Retain 315 Dou las-flr 2B 142 60 14 20 20 14 flat side Retain 316 Douglas -fir 1 6 41 70 11 4 4 1 11 Retain 317 Douglas -fir 11 62 70 18 1 9 9 0 Retain 318 Douglas -fir 7 54 70 3 0 9 14 Retain 319 Douglas -fir 10 75 70 13 8 6 13 Retain 320 Douglas -fir 26 112 40 39 6 14 22 bt, 10% dieback, cavity at 12' remove 321 Dou a"r is 89 50 22 2 27 26 retain 322 Dou les-fir 11 78 40 16 4 22 21 1 retain 323 big leaf ma le 10, 13, 13 65 70 33 0 26 31 forks at 1' retain 324 big leaf maple 11, 10,12, 11,1 71 70 18 6 29 27 forks at 1' retain 325 westem red Cedar 6 29 90 9 2 8 10 retain 326 Douglas -fir 18 99 80 14 12 15 13 corrected sweep retain 327 Douglas -fir 15 85 70 24 6 19 17 self corrected sweep retain 328 Douglas -fir 14 100 70 18 4 14 15 retain 329 Douglas -fir 7 49 70 7 0 8 10 retain 330 Douglas -fir 7 52 70 9 8 10 1 12 retain Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) Tree Assessment Summary Form American Forest Management AF` 1 V 1 For: Madrona School Date: January 2015 Inspectors: Tom Hanson and Kelly Wilkinson Tree # Species DBH (inches) Height (feet) Crown Ratio (%) Dripline Defects Recommendations INE S W 331 Douglas -fir 8 51 80 12 6 8 13 retain 332 Douglas -fir 7 56 70 12 6 8 10 retain 333 Pacific madrone 16 72 60 16 0 19 26 retain 334 Douglas -fir B 45 70 15 2 14 6 crook at 10' retain 335 Pacific madrone 7,5 49 60 10 0 16 14 retain 336 bitter cherry 7 55 80 6 4 6 14 retain 337 Douglas -fir 9 64 so 4 2 16 9 retain 338 Dou las-fir 9 59 50 5 4 12 6 retain 339 Doug4rilir 12 61 50 8 4 7 14 retain 340 Douglas -fir 10 60 70 12 7 7 14 retain 341 Douglas -fir 13 74 80 12 4 12 16 retain 342 Douglas -fir 14 82 80 9 6 13 16 retain 343 Douglas -fir 11 65 so 17 6 13 15 retain 344 Douglas -fir 11 59 80 13 5 10 14 1 retain 345 Douglas -fir 9 35 90 12 5 10 14 retain 346 Douglas -fir 9 67 70 8 2 9 14 retain 347 Douglasfir 10 69 70 6 4 6 14 retain 348 Douglas -fir 11 50 90 9 4 9 16 retain 349 Do las-fir 11 91 80 4 4 8 16 retain 350 Douglas -fir 10 59 80 9 7 6 14 retain 351 Douglas -fir 11 55 70 12 6 8 16 retain 352 Pacific madrone 8647 5o 6 0 7 24 10%dieback retain 353 Pacific madrone 14 70 10 0 11 29 rerain 354 western red cedar 10 80 13 8 10 14 retain 355 Do las-fir 30 50 25 14 18 36 thin crown, pitchy, flat side, root rot remove 356 western red cedar 10 90 13 6 9 14 retain 357 las-fir 23 5o 10 6 28 34 root rot remove 358 Dou las-fir 27 40 24 10 18 22 root rot, thin crown remove 359 Do las-fir 12 68 20 14 0 5 25 small crown, old lightning scar remove 360 Douglas -fir 7 35 80 6 0 11 it retain 361 willow 10,9 67 1 70 14 1 0 10 27 forks at 1' retain 362 western red cedar 13 58 80 14 4 8 17 retain 363 western red cedar 22 74 90 10 4 14 19 retain 364 Pacific madrone 10 45 70 14 0 1 9 24 leafspot retain 365 wastem ted cedar 19 64 80 14 5 12 19 retain 366 Douglas -fir 25 126 30 14 8 14 22 1 thin crown, pitchy, flat side retain 367 Pacific madrone 5 22 60 4 0 6 16 leaf spot retain 368 Douglas -fir 4 20 8o 6 4 8 12 1 retain 369 Paclflc madrone 7 34 70 1 8 0 8 18 retain 370 Douglas -fir 33 143 40 24 9 28 20 broken top retain 371 Douglas -fir a 56 70 10 11 9 4 retain 372 Pacific madrone 6 23 70 4 0 4 19 retain 373 Dv las-fir 31 150 50 29 29 24 32 retain 374 Douglas -fir 30 146 60 21 20 27 26 retain 375 Pacific madrone 10,10 54 70 18 0 26 35 retain 376 Douglas -fir 9 62 30 6 6 8 8 retain 377 birch 8 52 50 5 0 0 18 retain 376 red alder 12 64 60 18 4 12 22 trunk seam retain 379 red alder 8 s0 60 B 1 0 6 16 1 retain 380 red alder 11 66 70 8 3 15 22 1 retain 381 red alder B 60 60 14 0 0 25 retain 382 Douglas -fir 12 68 80 9 8 9 15 retain 383 -fir 8 40 50 14 0 4 16 sweeD retain 384 Dou las-fir 13 60 70 15 3 15 19 crooks retain 385 as-frr 14 86 6" 10 6 12 16 retain Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) Tree Assessment Summary Form American Forest Management AFI For: Madrona School Date: January 2015 Inspectors: Tom Hanson and Kelly Wilkinson Tree # Species DBH (inches) Height (feet) Crown Ratio (%) Dripline Defects Recommendations N E S W 386 Douglas -fir 11 84 50 8 2 8 20 leaner retain 387 Dou las•fir 20 86 8o 12 7 13 24 retain 388 red alder 8 75 60 26 0 0 23 retain 389 Dou las-fir 17 89 70 12 8 10 13 _ retain 390 Douglas -fir 9 65 70 11 4 12 14 retain 391 1 Douglas -fir 7 46 80 8 4 7 11 1 retaln 392 Douglas -fir 28 119 40 15 6 S0 15 flat side retain 393 Douglas -fir 29 142 40 15 10 15 16 retain 394 Pacific madrone 10 40 50 2 0 15 18 10 %dieback retain 395 Dou as-fr 25 123 40 12 14 9 17 flat side retain 396 Pacific madrone 10 51 40 5 0 5 19 retain 397 Pacific madrone 11 51 40 5 0 5 10 retain 398 Douglas -fir 10 68 60 6 4 10 6 retain 399 red alder 10 577 60 40 0 3 15 retain 400 Douglas -fir 16 88 80 8 7 7 19 retain 401 western hemlock 13 60 70 6 1 8 12 retain 402 western red cedar 5 18 50 7 2 6 14 retain 403 Douglas -fir 14 48 70 9 7 12 14 retain 404 Douglas -fir 37 150 40 14 7 12 20 flat side retain 405 Douglas -fir 24 123 40 12 14 11 13 retain 406 Douglas -fir 13 68 40 11 7 10 11 ivy retain 407 Do las-6r 11 61 1 40 9 7 10 10 ivy retain 408 Pacific madrone 14 53 60 0 1 5 17 19 retain 409 western hemlock 23 75 70 10 13 15 24 retain 410 western red cedar 13 43 90 17 15 10 15 retain 411 redalder 24 93 60 35 35 12 4 _ retain 412 red alder 12 75 30 1 18 15 0 uppertrunk decay retain 413 bitter cherry 11 76 30 10 10 7 4 trunk seam M'Wn 414 western hemlock 8 48 80 9 15 9 8 retain 415 red alder 9 83 1 40 11 11 15 6 retain 416 red alder 14 84 60 25 28 16 8 retain 417 red alder 9 64 40 9 0 9 16 retain 418 red alder 7 35 40 4 19 0 0 retain 419 Do q as-fEr 10 51 40 6 11 8 0 retain 420 red alder 9 41 20 0 0 5 19 1 retain 421 DougTapfir 6 50 30 6 0 9 6 retain 422 Douglas -fir 7 39 50 8 11 8 0 lowertrunk wounds retain 423 willow 9 37 30 8 16 0 0 retain 424 red alder 11 55 1 60 18 24 11 0 retain 425 red alder 30 72 40 14 13 9 30 retain 426 red alder 9 50 40 4 45 0 0 retain 427 red alder 8,15 50 40 4 20 0 0 retain 428 red alder 10 52 40 0 10 0 0 retain 429 black cottonwood 25 108 6o 16 31 19 13 retain 430 Douglas -fir 8 32 30 10 15 5 4 retain 431 Douglas -fir 9 32 30 10 20 5 0 retain 432 red alder 14 66 70 1 7 28 7 9 retain 433 Pacificmadrone 7,6 41 30 7 20 14 0 10 percent dieback retain 434 Douglas -fir 33 133 60 12 12 7 10 retain 435 turd[ 7.4,8,5 71 30 10 13 14 3 1 retain 436 red alder 10 63 5o 20 15 5 0 retain 437 red alder 6.7 63 5o 18 15 3 7 retain 438 red alder 17 82 70 28 34 26 12 retain 439 red alder 15 69 70 12 22 12 0 retain 440 red alder 9.9.7 69 50 10 11 29 1 retain Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) iu Tree # Species 441 Douglas -fir 442 Pacific madrone 443 Douglas -fir 444 bitter cherry 445 Padric madrone 446 Douelae-fir hemlock 452 457 458 459 460 472 477 DBH lches) Height (feet) Crown Ratio (% 39 141 1 60 6.11 40 50 24 111 40 9 32 70 9 48 30 11 62 70 13 69 70 10.7 65 70 6 26 30 17 70 50 23 111 70 23 1.22 30 11 79 20 14 97 20 18 119 30 23 129 40 30 163 50 14 120 20 27 153 20 23 150 20 31 154 40 44 154 40 10 38 60 18.19 130 30 33 155 30 12 67 10 21 92 10 33 149 30 27 142 40 20 150 20 22 103 30 20 140 30 34 148 40 10 75 40 13 1, 30 17 99 50 28 135 30 35 145 40 26 147 40 Tree Assessment Summary Form For: Madrona School 15 16 1 17 I7 11 20 7 S 10 14 13 8 11 12 6 4 0 18 0 0 10 13 8 8 9 16 14 3 13 20 8 6 5 S 6 6 13 15 10 8 13 20 2 14 14 11 9 13 8 �19 8 10 5 18 25 1 6 4 16 18 10 7 4 12 10 5 9 10 8 8 10 11 10 8 14 13 9 12 12 18 13 9 12 20 12 12 16 12 1 13 15 15 13 13 11 7 21 16 5 0 20 8 0 6 15 13 14 12. t5 12 7 4 5 9 7 10 13 12 8 4 10 14 5 22 23 17 11 10 11 10 5 9 14 10 5 9 9 10 8 Defects double stem broken too American Forest Management Date: January 2015 Inspectors: Tom Hanson and Kelly Wilkinson Recommendations retain retain retain retain retain retain retain retain retain retain retain retain retain retain retain retain retain retain Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) 6.1.a Glossary of Common Ternis DBH Diameter at breast height, 4 '/2' above ground level Basal In the vicinity of the root/trunk connection at ground level Bole The tree stem (Trunk) E Butt Swell Abnormal swelling at the base of the tree a� a W Canker Localized diseased area on stems, roots and branches. Often shrunken and discolored. W 0 0 Codominant Two or more trunks originating from a single main trunk Conk The fruiting body of a fungus c �a Crook Abrupt bend in a branch or trunk M O� Crown The live branches or live leaves or live needles of a tree Crown ratio The percentage of live green leaves or needles to total height Dieback Notable dead foliage, starting at the end of a branch or the top of a tree Dripline The extent of live limbs from the trunk Epicormic A shoot arising from a dormant bud following exposure to sunlight Flat Side Trunk of the tree has a flattened appearance on the side, sometimes an indicator of internal decay Girdling Root A root that winds around the stem at ground level Included Bark Bark that is pinched between codominant stems; a common weak point Leader The central stem tip Leaf Spot Diseased areas on foliage Limb Collar The swelling at the junction of the bole and limb Pencil rot Severe stem decay and butt rot of western red cedar caused by Postia sericiomollis Photosynthesis The process of converting water, nutrients and CO2 to carbohydrates (wood) Packet Pg. 423 6.1.a Phytopthera Pathogen affecting roots of trees especially red alder in wet conditions Pitchy Excessive sap exuding from the tree trunk; often an indicator of stress Pruning The cutting and removal of limbs (Crown Raising) Rotten knot Point of the stem where limb removal has allowed pathogen infection and decay r (Black knot) a� Taper The ratio of diameter on different points of a trunk, stem or branch a a� Thin Crown Comparatively low live foliage percentage; often an indicator of root disease o 0 Topping Removal of the main stem above live, green limbs cn c 0 Trimming Shortening or cutting of limbs; sometimes called heading C� C Trunk Seam A seam in the trunk, suggests internal decay o� v Viable A structurally sound and healthy condition Vigor Tree health and growth rate Vitality The suitability of the tree for the site. Packet Pg. 424 6.1.a Tree Snecies Common to Madrona School Alaska yellow cedar Cupressus nootkatensis Bitter Cherry Prunus emarginata Black cottonwood Populus nigra Douglas -fir Psuedotsuga menziesii Flowering cherry Prunus kwanzan Laurel Prunus lusitanica LodMRole pine Pinus contorta Pacific dogwood Cornus nuttallii Pacific Madrone Arbutus menziesii Spruce Picea sp. Red Alder Alnus rubra Western red cedar Thuya plicata Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla White birch Betula papyrifera Willow Salix scouleriana Packet Pg. 425 6.1.a • y�_' ' • ' + • i T a Back filled root collar on tree #502 Packet Pg. 426 -1 I [k v F I, t �� �r:. v �■ , r -..tip, . :'+� r �� ��.ti �t � � s :• �ti �� :� �;, , , .. . � � �' � �ti �• � ` , . �, a i',.,� y �7l �, 1 .a •L A z �LS�• �. r ti ti _� ���+.ram{r4� � •�` � _ - s - -�. � . K. YT'rc �'.. . w • _ ...5±.' .� �i�-� Lam,,• S.. J •' � �} �' _ * �� ��� . q +• ��� x:- � fir. -. �:- 6.1.a Thin crowns indicating laminated root rot in trees #132 and 133 C M O� N r C d E t V R r-+ R t r-+ L O Q O L R M� W Q N O O W r O N Z J d r-i C d E L V R r a Packet Pg. 430 6.1.a 11 r t� 1 ■ INN �• • � � 1S }tDi } /■ 4 r NJ RC OWN IM-14 Pitching on tree #461 'L Packet Pg. 433 _.-...���� ~ +•, y � � fir � 1 • L` Fr A " r� 0 i rr( J l j1p of All IL e , r. 's• ram.•: ir- � :£ � • it - . . � - �{` pis •�}�.� . � _ •,} :'.��-� tr.r_'�.eti _ _ �� �V =��i''ii.lrt�: � r�L'.- _' �� �''R,'i' - Y _ � � ;_•'�'fi_ -�� :.y�.��..rr .'+ :fir.. ,� � : f' '= f. r -'fir :' L _ - ,•x; 6.1.a Madrona School Tree Assessment Tree Protection and Mitization Guidelines The following general guidelines are recommended to ensure that the designated space set aside for the retained trees are protected and construction impacts are kept to a minimum. Potentially harmful activities can include: ■ Trenching • Re -grading —lowering or raising the grade • Over -filling with soil, asphalt, concrete, etc. • Compaction • Pruning for building clearance • Equipment Storage All workers should be educated as to the reasons for protecting trees and the potential impacts of construction activities. These guidelines acknowledge the integration of play activities within the root zones of the trees and refer only to those trees in and near future construction zones. Retained Trees 1. Tree protection fencing should be erected around retained trees and positioned just beyond the drip -line edge prior to moving any heavy equipment on site. Doing this will set clearing limits and avoid compaction of soils within root zones of retained trees. 2. Any existing infrastructure to be removed within the drip -line or tree protection zone shall be removed by hand or utilizing a tracked mini -excavator. 3. Excavation limits should be laid out in paint on the ground to avoid over excavating. 4. Excavations within the drip -lines shall be monitored by a qualified tree professional so necessary precautions can be taken to decrease impacts to tree parts. A qualified tree professional shall monitor excavations when work is required and allowed within the "limits of disturbance". 5. To establish sub grade for foundations, curbs and pavement sections near the trees, soil should be removed parallel to the roots and not at 90 degree angles to avoid breaking and tearing roots that lead back to the trunk within the drip -line. Any roots damaged during these excavations should be exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly with a saw. Cutting tools should be sterilized with alcohol. Packet Pg. 439 6.1.a Madrona School Tree Assessment 6. Areas excavated within the drip -line of retained trees should be thoroughly irrigated weekly during dry periods. 7. Preparations for final landscaping shall be accomplished by hand within the drip -lines of retained trees. Large equipment shall be kept outside of the tree protection zones at all times. Simply finish landscape within 10' of retained trees with a 2" to 4" layer of organic mulch. 8. Limb removal (pruning) should be conducted by a trained arborist to ANSI 300 standards. Specific pruning guidelines can be developed on a tree by tree basis. 9. Once construction plans are in place, protection plans specific to individual trees should be developed and a monitoring plan put in place. 10. Existing trees within the existing building campuses are not likely to be candidates for relocation. In fact most of those assessed have broadly spreading and shallow root structures that should be protected to a greater extent than the dripline. Once construction plans are in place, specific protections should be implemented on a tree by tree basis. Mitigation Guidelines Trees to be retained can be "adjusted" to provide wildlife habitat while reducing hazard risk. Trees unsafe to climb should be felled at the stump and if possible left on site to provide burrowing sites. 2. Coniferous trees that can be climbed by a professional tree climber can be height reduced to about 30-feet (or less if a failure would strike infrastructure) and any limbs below the height reduction removed. 3. Deciduous trees that can be climbed by a professional tree climber can be height reduced to about 30-feet (or less if a failure would strike infrastructure) and any limbs below the height reduction removed. Sprouting is likely, thus periodic re -cutting of sprouts will likely be required. 4. Debris can be left on site, off trails and out of open areas as additional habitat. General Tree removal and mitigation debris can be left on site if space allows. Chipping of debris is an alternative but care must be taken not to pile chips around tree bases, but rather spread in a layer no deeper than 6-inches across the forest floor. In any event, the Madrona trees should be inspected on a three year cycle for the appearance of defects or declining vigor. Packet Pg. 440 6.1.a FRONT APPROACH m a h l u MADONMAIRINA SCHOOL NS SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 26 AUGUST 2016 MAHLUM ARCHITECTS INC ® RECE.iV JUL V, 2016 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER WEATHERING STEEL METAL PANEL ■ BRICK FIBER CEMENT PANEL TRANSLUCENT POLYCARBONATE PANEL SYSTEM FIBERGLASS WINDOW / ALUMINUM PLATE SILL A. Attachment 13 P LN20160027 Packet Pg. 441 OW `' `. raw. •rfy . Jr ; All — CIO Sk. 46 .F Mk-r +. Ar `� `�ia �� �� ,,�k _ Jam. _��, . ,� ,��• `�r Y 00 •� ` e • � . S 1 �?isy y tt ate- .•* r { ,�r. C. �. 'r �L. �� l - 6.1.a VIEW FROM TRACK MADRONA SCHOOL m a h l u m EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 26 AUGUST 2016 MAHLUM ARCHITECTS INC WEATHERING STEEL METAL PANEL ■ BRICK FIBER CEMENT PANEL TRANSLUCENT POLYCARBONATE PANEL SYSTEM FIBERGLASS WINDOW / ALUMINUM PLATE SILL ig Packet Pg. 443 6.1.a PRODUCT DESCRIPTION Cor-ten Steel oxidizes naturally over time, giving it an orange -brown color and a rough and granular texture. It has a very high tensile strength, and in spite of its rusted appearance it is actually more resistant to damaging corrosion than standard forms of carbon steel. Cor-ten Is an alloy that through the chemical interaction of weather and steel, prevents rust from penetrating the surface and creating rust holes.The rust actually forms a shield over the steel. Cor-ten is highly resistant to exposure -related corrosion once the initial oxidation process reaches saturation levels. Weathering steel has become extremely popular in architectural applications for both residential and commercial projects. It's used for both siding and roofing materials in corrugated, standing seam and plate cladding systems. FEATURES & BENEFITS • Weather resistant. • Maintenance -free. • Beautiful, aged patina that develops over time. APPLICATIONS • Roofing Rural buildings • Facades • Gazebos • Fences & gates Interior ceilings • Sculpture & accents COR-TEN PRODUCTS I I'. • Available in coils Double Lock Standing and flat sheets. Seam Panels. l' • Perforations. Flat LockTiles. • Corrugation. Pre -formed roof panels. Y. SPECIFICATIONS A606-04 Type 4 Cor-ten Steel �r +ILI Gauge 22 (other gauges available upon request) Finished Panel Dimensions, Flat: 48.00" (121.90cm) x 10' (3.05m) Master Coil Dimensions: —� 48.00" (121.90cm) x 10' (3.05m) Roofing Coil Dimensions: 24.00" (61 cm) x 10' (3.05m) COR-TEND is a registered trademark of United States Steel Corporation, el,Zinc' Y ONE el.iiinc` KE 6MIetalTech.NA Printed on recyclable papAFWith atleast Changing Ideas Into Sustainable Reality.- 10 percent post -fir material. �(7 611 Highway 74 South, Suite 900 • Peachtree City, GA 30269 P: 770.486.8825 • F: 770.631.7689 Email: info@metaltech-usa.com • Visit us on the web at: www.metaltech-usa.com V MTCT-09 Packet Pg. 444 6.1.a C r a Packet Pg. 445 6.1.a Prestige Series° Prestige Series is a concealed fastener metal wall system that reveals a clean distinctive design in any application. No Reveal - Full 12" Panel ✓ ✓ ✓ I ✓ 2" Reveal -10" Up, 2" Down ✓ ✓ ✓ 1" Reveal -11" Up, 1" Down ✓ ✓ ✓ 6" Reveal - 6" Up, 6" Down ✓ ✓ standard features • Custom manufactured sheet lengths from 5'-0" to 40'-0". (25'-0" max for 24ga panels) ■ Offered in 4 different reveals: 0", 1 ", 2", and 6". ■ Available in 22ga and 24ga in standard finishes — refer to AEP Span Color Charts for full range of color options, specialty finishes, and paint systems. ■ 20ga available in ZINCALUME® Plus. ■ Tested in accordance to ASTM E1592, and ASTM E283 and E331. ■ High performance clip available to meet wind loads. • Available with 1 or 2 minor ribs. • Full 12" panel available with wave pattern. ■ Code compliance evaluation report - IApMo IAPMO-UES #ER-0309. Fs 6" Reveal - Flat Pan 12" No Reveal - Flat Pan 11/2" 1'/ �_ 12" Coverage ►{ � 12" Coverage —� V Reveal - Flat Pan 2" Reveal - 2 Pencil Ribs �I 4- 1/2" 1h" 12' Coverage- a{ 12" Coverage —a T (Shown with optional ribs) optional features ■ Short cut sheets from 5'-0" to 2'-0"*. Additional fees and lead times may apply. ■ Stucco embossed — Subject to 500 If minimum. Additional fees and lead times may apply. • Custom colors, thick film primer and/or clear coat paint finishes available. Subject to 3,000 square feet minimum order.** ■ 18ga and 20ga available - subject to a minimum order size of 3,000 square feet and longer lead times. • Perforation options available for an additional charge. Minimum order size 500 sq feet. Select from standard perforation patterns with open areas of 7.8%, 13.8%, 23.4%, 30.6%, or 41.4%. ` V-0" for non -revealed panel *" Inquire with AEP Span representative regarding premium Vintage® and Specialty Prints availability. Packet Pg. 446 6.1.a Prestige SeriesP Prestige 12-up (0" Reveal) 24 0.0232 50 65 1.51 0.0824 0.0605 0.1048 0.0721 1 AZ50 22 0.0294 50 65 1.89 0.1064 0.0853 0.1338 0.0954 AZ50 Dura Tech' 5000 20 0.0354 40 55 2.27 0.1337 0.1203 0.1643 0.1221 AZ50 or Dura Tech- mx 18 0.0459 40 55 2.93 0.1770 0.1799 0.2130 0.1649 AZ50 NOTES: The moments of inertia, V and I-, presented for determining deflection are: (2lEftec _ + Ir_J/3 .• .. Single • ASD, W/O i 1 302 134 1 1 1 75 48 34 25 21 Span U180 - - - 33 21 17 24 Double ASD, W/Q 207 138 87 56 39 28 25 Span U180 - - - - - - - Triple ASD, W/.Q 235 157 108 70 49 35 31 Span U180 - - - - - - - Single ASD, M 426 189 106 68 47 35 30 Span U180 - - - - 43 27 22 22 Double ASD, W/.Q 326 200 115 74 52 38 34 Span U180 - - - - - - Triple ASD, W/0 371 246 143 92 64 48 41 Span U180 - - - - - - - Single ASD, W/f2 480 213 120 77 53 39 34 Span U180 - - - - - 34 28 20 Double ASD, W/.Q 326 204 118 76 53 39 34 Span 1-1180 - - - - - - - Triple ASD, W/.Q 371 247 144 94 65 48 42 Span U180 - - - - - - - Single ASD, W/f1 656 319 180 115 80 59 51 Span U180 - - - - 72 45 37 18 Double ASD, W/0 326 218 158 103 71 53 46 Span U180 - - - - - - - Triple ASD, W/O 371 247 185 127 88 65 57 Span U180 - - - - - 33 33 33 M M Ir Packet Pg. 447 6.1.a Prestige 11-up (1" Reveal) 24 0.0232 50 65 1.51 1 0.0849 0.0598 0.1114 0.0807 AZ50 22 0.0294 50 65 1.89 0.1101 0.0843 0.1443 0.1098 AZ50 Dura Tech' 5000 20 0.0354 40 55 2.27 0.1383 0.1187 0.1783 0.1430 _ AZ50 or Dura Tech' mx 18 0.0459 40 55 2.93 0.1840 0.1773 0.2307 0.1917 AZ50 NOTES: The moments of inertia, I' and I-, presented for determining deflection are: (21E„sows + Icross)/3 Gauge ..n Single ASD, W/.Q Allowable i 298 133 Inward 75 Loads (lbs/ft2) per Span (ft.-in.) r i.1111111011111111 48 33 24 21 Span U180 - - - - - 22 18 Double ASD, W/O 209 139 95 62 43 32 28 24 Span U180 - - - - - - - Triple ASD, W/0 237 158 117 77 53 40 35 Span U180 - - - - - 33 Single Span ASD, W/O 421 187 105 67 47 34 30 U180 - - - - 45 28 23 Double ASD, W/.Q 288 192 129 1 84 59 44 38 22 Span U180 - - - - - - Triple Span ASD, W/.Q 327 218 157 103 73 53 47 U180 - - - - - 53 43 Single Span ASD, W/t2 474 211 118 76 53 39 34 U180 - - - - - 35 29 20 Double Span ASD, W/D 288 192 133 86 61 45 40 U180 - - - - - - Triple Span ASD, W/0 327 218 161 106 75 56 49 U180 - - - - Single ASD, W1.0 619 315 177 113 79 58 50 Span U180 - - - - 74 47 38 18 Double ASD, W/.Q 288 192 144 115 81 60 53 Span U180 - - - - - - Triple ASD, WM 327 218 164 131 100 75 65 Span U180 - - - - - - I- 24 1 14 1 14 1 13 1 12 12 11 1 11 22 20 19 19 19 18 18 18 20 20 19 19 19 18 18 18 Packet Pg. 448 6.1.a Prestige Series° Prestige 10-up (2" Reveal) 24 0.0232 50 65 1 1.51 0.0865 0.0593 0,1119 0.0816 AZ50 22 0.0294 50 65 1.89 0.1121 0,0835 0.1451 0.1121 AZ50 Dura Tech- 5000 20 0.0354 40 55 2.27 0.1407 0.1173 0.1813 0.1499 AZ50 or Dura Tech- mx 18 0.0459 40 55 2.93 0.1887 0.1750 0.2393 0.2102 AZ50 NOTES: The moments of inertia, I' and I-, presented for determining deflection are: (26e0ve + Icrou)/3 Single ASD, W/O Allowable... 296 132 74 .. 47 33 24 21 Span U180 - - - - - 22 18 Double ASD, W/.Q 209 139 96 62 43 32 28 24 Span U180 - - - - - Triple ASD, W/D 237 158 118 77 54 40 34 Span U180 - - - - - - 34 Single ASD, W/.Q 417 185 104 67 46 34 30 Span U180 - - - - 45 29 23 22 Double ASD, W/Q 288 192 131 86 60 45 38 Span U180 - - - - - - - Triple ASD, W/O 327 218 160 105 74 55 48 Span U180 - - - - - 54 44 Single ASD, W/.Q 468 208 117 75 52 38 33 Span U180 - - - - - 36 29 20 Double ASD, W/.Q 288 192 138 90 63 47 41 Span U180 - - - - - - - Triple ASD, W/.Q 327 218 164 111 79 58 51 Span U180 - - - - - - - Single ASD, WM 619 310 175 112 78 57 50 Span U180 - - - - 76 48 39 18 Double ASD, W/0 288 192 144 115 89 65 57 Span U180 - - - - - - Triple ASD, WM 327 218 164 131 109 81 71 Span U180 - - - - - 24 1 89 1 81 1 72 1 63 1 54 1 45 40 22 1 88 88 1 77 1 66 1 55 1 44 1 38 20 1 88 88 1 77 1 66 1 55 1 44 1 38 Packet Pg. 449 6.1.a S AN Prestige 6-up (6" Reveal) 24 0.0232 50 1 65 1.51 0.0821 1 0.0577 0.0977 0.0783 1 AZ50 22 0.0294 50 65 1.89 0.1072 0.0808 0.1267 0.1083 AZ50 Dura Tech- 5000 20 0.0354 40 55 2.27 0.1357 0.1127 0.1581 0.1467 AZ50 or Dura Tech- mx 18 0.0459 40 55 2.93 0.1830 0.1666 0.2090 0.2094 AZ50 NOTES: The moments of inertia, V and I-, presented for determining deflection are: (26- + IG—)/3 Gauge Span Single Cond. ASD, W/D 288 128 . 72 ... 46 . • .. 32 23 20 Span U180 - - - - - 21 17 24 Double Span ASD, WED 209 139 93 60 42 31 27 U180 - - - - - - - Triple Span ASD, W/O 237 158 114 75 52 39 34 180 - - - - - 32 Single ASD, W/S2 403 179 101 65 45 33 29 Span 180 - - - 43 27 22 Double ASD, W/0 288 192 127 83 58 43 37 22 Span U180 - - - - - - - Triple ASD, W/0 327 218 155 102 71 53 46 Span U180 - - - - - 52 42 Single ASD, W/0 450 200 112 72 50 37 32 Span U180 - - - - - 35 28 Double ASD, WK2 288 192 136 88 62 46 41 20 Span U180 - - - - - - - Triple ASD, W/S2 327 218 164 109 77 57 50 Span U180 - - - - - - Single ASD, WK2 619 296 166 106 74 54 47 Span U180 - - - - - 47 38 18 Double ASD, WK2 288 192 144 115 89 66 57 Span U180 - - - - - - - Triple ASD, W/S2 327 218 164 131 109 80 71 Span F U180 - - - - - - Packet Pg. 450 6.1.a Prestige Series° LOADING TABLE LEGEND W/4 - Allowable panel strength L - Span (Inches) L/180 - Load limited by a deflection of 1/180 of the span W - Distributed load Single Span w L� w I�T� Inward Loads Double Span L — L 7 w l Triple Span �LJ,LL� Outward t t f t t t f 1 t t t t Loads L Oil Canning: All flat metal surfaces can display waviness commonly referred to as "oil canning". "Oil canning" is an inherent characteristic of steel products, not a defect, and therefore is not a cause for panel rejection. C S AN NOTES: ■ The information in these tables applies to uniform loads only ■ Upper values based on allowable panel strength Bottom values based on allowable service load deflection of L/180. a "" denotes that capacities are limited by panel strength vs. deflection ■ Steel conforms to ASTM A792 (ZINCALUME®) with 50 ksi minimum yield for 24 and 22 gauge, 40 ksi minimum yield for 20 and 18 gauge. 18 gauge supplied as G-90 (ASTM A653) ■ Values are based on AISI S100-07/S2-10 ■ Maximum allowable outward load capacities are shown and dependent upon fastener -to -substrate capacities. Refer to IAPMO-UES report #ER-0309 for spe- cific product capacities. Specifications subject to change without notice 02007-2016 ASC Profiles LLC All rights reserved. May 2016 Printed in USA (PS134) 300 Packet Pg. 451 ZINCALUME® Plus* SRI: 65 • 24ga, 22ga & 20ga Cool Terra-Cotta SRI: 41 - 24ga & 22ga Cool Zinc Gray SRI: 39 • 24ga & 22ga Cool Tahoe Blue SRI: 33 • 24ga & 22ga Cool Jade Green SRI: 29 • 24ga & 22ga Cool Regal White SRI: 88 • 24ga & 22ga Cool Red Cool Weathered Copper SRI: 34 • 24ga & 22ga Cool Regal Blue SRI: 29 • 24ga & 22ga Cool Leaf Green SRI: 30 • 24ga & 22ga Vintage coated metal is an innovative coating process over a TruZin& G90 metallic coated steel surface producing a beautiful, durable, aged -metallic finish. Cool Parchment SRI: 58 - 24ga & 22ga Cool Colonial Red SRI: 36 • 24ga & 22ga Cool Dark Bronze SRI: 32 • 24ga & 22ga Cool Marine Green SRI: 47 • 24ga & 22ga Cool Forest Green SRI: 29 • 24ga & 22ga Cool Sierra Tan SRI: 56 • 24oa & 22a Cool Old Town Gray SRI: 43 • 24ga & 22ga Cool Matte Black SRI: 29 • 24ga & 22ga Cool Hemlock Green SRI: 36 • 24ga & 22ga Dura Tech' coatings combine the corrosion protection of a ZINCALUME® substrate with a highly durable resin formulation and cool pigment technology to provide excellent color retention and reduces the demand for energy. rgdgq CR DURA TECH" mx - Premium Fluoropolymer (PVDF) Pearlescent Coating (Subject to up -charge) Cool Metallic Silver Cool ZACtique® II Cool Metallic Champagne Cool Metallic Copper SRI: 65 • 24ga & 22ga SRI: 39 • 24ga & 22ga SRI: 54 • 24ga & 22ga SRI: 53 • 24ga & 22ga SRI=Solar Reflective Index. SRI values in accordance with ASTM E1980 and are based on independent testing. Cool Roof Rating Council (CRRC) performance values (for CA Title 24, Energy Star) are based on color families and will differ from those listed above. Please visit www.aepspan.com for additional information. *Clear acrylic coated 800-733-4955 Custom colors available by request www.aeDSDan.com Packet Pg. 452 b62"p-TEH D RATfE Fz&xr sao� � � KYNAR 5000 OR HYLAR 5000® COLOR FINISHES — Provides excellent resistance to weathering and aging for maximum exterior durability, Standard Film Thickness D5796 0.15 - 0.25 mil primer, 0.70 - 0.80 mil top coat 0.50 mil backer coat (Polyester system applied over a primer) Marine Environment Film Thickness D5796 0.70 - 0.80 mil primer, 0.70 - 0.80 mil topcoat, 0.40 - 0.05 mil clear coat Other unusual environmental conditions or specialized pigmentation may have different primer and clear coat requirements. Specular Gloss D523 8-15% at 600 (Dura Tech 5000) 15-25% at 600 (Dura Tech mx) Pencil Hardness D3363 F-2H Flexibility T-Bend D4145 2T No loss of adhesion or evidence of cracking2 Cross Hatch Adhesion D3359 No adhesion loss Reverse Impact D2794 No cracking or loss of adhesion Abrasion, Falling Sand D968 65 liters minimum Flame Test E84 Class A coating Acid Pollutants 20% Sulfuric Acid, 18hrs. D1308 No bleaching 10% Muriatic Acid, 24hrs. No color change, no blistering Acid Rain Test Kesternich 15 cycles minimum Alkali Resistance Kesternich No effect Salt Spray Resistance B117 Passes 1,000 hours, coated stee12 Cyclic Salt Fog B5894 2,000 hours passes adhesion Humidity Resistance @ 100' B2247 Passes 2,000 hours, coated stee12 South Florida Exposure D2244 <5 NBS units change UVB D822 Passes 3,000 hours Chalk Resistance D4214 Rating of 8 minimum ZINCALUME® A792 55% aluminum -zinc alloy coated steel and Galvalume substrate with a metallic coating weight ofAZ50 Limited warranties for chalk, fade and film integrity are available in durations of up to 30 years for both Dura Tech' 5000 and Dura Tech- mx. All AEP Span panels are offered with a corrosion warranty on Galvalume® or ZINCALUME® substrate. Terms can be affected by factors such as environment and building use. Inquire for details. COMPOSITION &APPLICAT• Dura Tech" 5000/mx coatings are factory applied, oven cured formulas applied by approved coil coaters. They utilize Kynar 500® or Hylar 50000 PVDF resins and inorganic, IR reflective pigments for superior long-term performance. PRETREATMENT All substrates are pre-treated in accordance with paint manufacturer's instructions. The pretreatment is to provide a suitable surface for application of the recommended primer. All tests performed to the latest ASTM revision. The test results set forth are representative of the results obtained by the paint manufacturer s Performances on HDG G90, ZINCALUME®, Galvalume® Color swatches are for reference only and are limited by printing process and viewing conditions. With metallic coatings, minor differences in both color and appearance are normal and to be expected It is virtually impossible to match one metallic coating to another Due to the coil application process, striations and longitudinal patterning may also show on these products. To minimize the possible visual effects of the normal minor differences in paint and its application, an entire job should be painted at one time Additionally, fabricated panels, flat sheets, and flashings should be orientated in the same direction for installation Contact AEP Span representative for actual color samples prior to purchase. 800-733-4955 www aier,%cnnn rnm �— •a`r���v►A :r -_�__~.-_t--rl rr_ .- .�--%� r+�if' +"• �!`=+i�L.._•v. �r1��.-'_- .{-'r'-- - ti.�.� ' ' �, ; ._ � .:. �• _ . _ . r . �; — -^ �, yr.-�:�rx, � •_ . -_ - ti' fir` '•, "Y= _. _ ' a��: - _ , . .:: =: - _ - k ::"� 44 Lew • _ -_fir:_ �:"'�. - ' _ _ _{�V ." _" - - _ ,� _ .. .. • - -"* rii[}(' Wit.-T��' •ti �' Y - r J • -. '-; _ • - ,"" ^ham`—�'�'� a • • _ - - C - - _ _ _ x � _.'` '�'�' -fir•• +,�� :� - - ...� - _" - _ .__ - -''_• ' '�-r ai.�:-�.► — � �t `ti . � - -mot' _ .. " - _ • _ • � �." THE BRINK BOOK COLORS I TEXTURES I ASTM Whites & Grays COLOR*:AS en TEXTUR : Mission Smooth, Rug TYPE**: Special Order PLANT: Mica, WA COLLECTIONMA ASTM: ASTM C-216, SW, FBX Due to the limitations of photography, the actual product shipped is not guaranteed to duplicate the image shown here. Final color and product selection should be made from actual samples. = iy . -_ _ �'` Sr-'• - = -,;�y:�`* Special Order Colors require a minimum order. • -' - ti. ? - - �_�-� "�� _ ��,, _ •�{ _� � �„� r Additional production time should be allowed. 4-11 - �- � rr • .. _ .. ^ . _"'`�r.'�Fr � ��� ".�' y, _ ^r fir- � ���"` �. ''Y'r y'- �� - - 'k yr- _ -" _ • - :`� . �''•�- •J. S— �• _ r -. ! T07'1"�=''•TrT.1- l _ 1.��•:� f�" "�•� Considering brick for your project? For samples and ordering information contact your Mutual Materials Sales Representative or call (888) 688-8250. MUTUALMATERIALS www.mutuatmateria[s.com -Ph Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) 6.1.a C r a Packet Pg. 455 Cembrit XX Tel. +00 0000 0000 Postal Code Fax +00 0000 0000 City, Country E-mail info@cembrit.xx Exterior cladding 6.1.a 0_00 0r Cembrit Cembrit Cembonit Through -coloured classics with attractive matt finish Cembrit Cembonit is a strong, weather-proof cladding board characterised by its subtle, matt finish.The board is through - coloured in your choice of one of I I muted, natural colours. 2500 mm During the manufacturing process, the board receives a unique surface treatment that makes it powerfully resistant towards water staining and dirt, ensuring a long-lasting and durable facade. The natural authenticity of the Cembrit Cembonit board is expressed through the slight colour variations in the surface, imbuing your facade with the play of light and nuances you associate with any natural building material. Over time, these natural variations may develop as the surface patinates. Cembrit Cembonit is supplemented by a complete range of ac- cessories to ensure simple, easy installation and a sleek, stylish end -result that will last longer. 3050 mm 2500 mm 3050 mm 1192 mm 1250 mm 1192 mm 1250 mm Cembrit XX Tel. +00 0000 0000 Postal Code Fax +00 0000 0000 City, Country E-mail info@cembrit.xx Exterior cladding - Cembrit Cembonit 6.1.a 000 00 Cembrit ❑en',47 Kglmr 1500 I500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 Might K Im' 10+2 13.6 10.2 13.6 10.2 13.6 10.2 13.6 K Iboard 30.6 40.E 37.3 49.8 31.9 42,5 38.9 51.9 Mechanical properties gen&g modulus ofdostkity Dry E-rnadule with grain GPa 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Dry E-module across grain GIFb 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 ME E-module with gmin GPa 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Wet E-moduk across groin GPa 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Serafing strengmh Dry with gron MPa 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 Dry across grain MAa 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 Wet with gmin MPa 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 Wet ocross grain MPa 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 finerfamfnar bond Q MPa 2.6 .2.6 Z6 2.6 2.6 26 Z6 2.6 Wet MPG 1,4 1,4 LAI 1,4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 Impact strength (Charpp) Dry with grain k W 2.8 2.8 28 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 Dry acrass grain k11m' Z3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 23 23 23 Thermol properties Heat conducuy' Wlm "e VA 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0,4 0.4 0.4 Coeftkinofthermal expansfan mm/m'C 0.010 0.010 0.0)0 0.010 0.010 0,010 0.010 0010 Temperature range °C Max 150 Max 150 Max 150 Max 150 Max 150 Max 150 _ Max 150 Max 150 Frost resistance a ties > 100 > 100 > 100 >I00 >100 > 100 > 100 > 100 Hygmtkirnof praper6n Water absorption (we[ over dry) % 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25,0 25.0 25.0. 25.0 ft-dry-we[_{mox} mm/m 2.6 26 2.6 2,6 2.6 2.6 26 2.6 Water va r transmlSsIon Propetifes 2.3°G - 50193% Al l Yapourpermeance nglmrs Pa 700 550 700 550 700 550 700 550 Vapour transmission resistance Gpa s mxlk 1.4 2.3 fA 2.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 2,3 Yapwr transmission resistance s/m 10,300 16900 i0300 16,900 10,300 16.900 10,300 16,900 !a ourmslstl WORM 227 227 227 227 227 227 227 227 vappur resistance ar, U 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Tolerances fref EN 12 46 7 Thickness mm t0.S *0.5 t_ 0.5 t0.5 t0.5 30.5 t0.5 Len mm t2 t2 t2 t2 _t0.5 t2 22 t2 ±2 Wid[h mm t1 tl tl tl tl tl tl fl Other propertes Ca Qoss EN12467 NTA41 NTA41 NTA4I NTA4I NTA41 NTA41 NTA41 NTA41 Fire rating EN 13501 A2-s 1, d0 AZ-g1, da_ ._R2•_5..1.,.dO A2sI, d0 A2al, d0 A2-sI, d0 AZ-s 1, d0 A2-s 1, d0 6.1.a Architectural RainScreen Systems With High Density Fiber Cem en t Boards We Offer a Wide Range of Colors and Textures, including lute ral Color and Custom Color Panels Packet Pg. 458 The RainS creen System 6.1.a Aluminum/Steel - Vertical Furring System Wood - Vertical Furring System R-TEC CI System - Vertical Furring System with Exterior Insulation R-TEC CI System - Horizontal and Vertical Furring System with Exterior Insulation s_ f Dissipating Heat from the Sun Preventing Thermal Bridges Prevention of Internal Condensation Packet Pg. 459 Las Vegas Residence —Las Vegas, NV Architect: Moderna Architects JMMMMMENEOF 6.1-a 4 1 -1j;Pi �+ Y. E - m O.C. Great Park Visitors Center Irvine, C. o Architect: WRNS Studi 0 U M c 0 M Clearwater Casino Resort—Suquamish, WA Architect: Rice Fergus Miller Installer: Axiom Construction Riverview Elementary School Snohomish, WA Architect: NACArchitecture M 1515 Modern Condos San Francisco, CA Architect: Stanley Saitowitz Packet Pg. 460 6.1.a 901 Pear! 0 i Clembrit 911 Cembonit boards are through -colored with a muted, matte finish. These come in l l colors. The slight color variations in the surface give these boards its natural look. 501 Venus 502 Mars 503 Neptune 504 Luna 505 Terra _ 506 Jupiter 507 Orcus 508 Pluto 509 Mercury 510 Erebus 511 Rhea 512 Saturn 513 Ceres 514 Triton 515 Mimas 516 callisto Zenit boards have a through -colored baseboard that is fully covered with a 100% acrylic, water -based paint. These boards come in 16 deep and natural colors. These boards allow for a custom color on one of the 9 baseboards. 301 Gobi' -- • AvadnhLri die 4o mr, g cf 201-0. 304 307 310 Antarctic Kili Sahara True boards are through -colored boards with a semi- transparent surface treatment. These boards come in 7 carefully selected colors. s� mom r C Nuuk 109 c� C W U Q d 0 cn 0 Cl) 6D r Metro boards have classic gray baseboard that is fully covered with a 100% opaque, water -based acrylic paint. These boards come in 26 vibrant colors and allow for custom colors on the gray baseboard. Minerit HD is a medium gray uncoated board. It can be used as is, or finished with a concrete stain or paint. 2029 SOUTH PARC❑ AVE ❑NTARI❑, CALIFORNIA 9 1 76 (909)284-500I INFO@F❑UN DRYSERVICE. COI WWW. FOUN DRYSERVICE. COt Packet Pg. 461 UniQuad° - a unitized insulated translucent panel system developed for high-performance building envelopes. This comprehensive system offers exceptional design versatility that allows you to combine the performance you need with the look you want. • Unitized System - Quick, Cost -Effective Install • RST - Removable Skin Technology • Long -Span Capability - Slab to Slab • Bi-Color Design Options • Energy Savings - Superior Thermal Performance • Rainscreen Design • Specialized Performance Options Dynamic Shading Forced Entry Sound Reduction Additional Insulation Hurricane Resistant Certification UniQuad is factory glazed and assembled for superior quality control. UniQuad Jniized Daylighting System Explore what's possible when Imagination meets Innovation Packet Pg. 462 k^0111. CP1 Daylighting Building Envelope Solutions UNIQUAD®- TYPICAL DETAILS D I -- i t U �. DETAIL D HEADASSEMBLY DETAILA PANEL JOINT DETAIL A ti@: C - DETAIL B INTERMEDIATE DETAIL C PURLIN SUPPORT SILLASSEMBLY UniQuad Span Chart Guideline 14 . 12 - - - 107mm(4.25 m)sniem —76 —(3 m) Sy,- 10 — — i a 20 40 ip as 100 110 140 160 Total Appll.d load (PSF) CPI Daylighting, Inc. 28662 N. Ballard Drive Lake Forest, IL 60045 090"L-i' 6iiw RST - Removable Skin Technology The unique two panel design ensures that the building envelope remains sealed and that its integrity is not compromised. The interior panel is protected from exterior weather conditions, LIV radiation, Impact and other hazards, and may remains intact for the life of the building. Each panel can be removed independently, without removal of the entire system, allowing building operations to remain uninterrupted. Renew the life of the system at a marginal cost! CPIDAYLIGHTING.COM 847.816.1060 info@cpidaylighting.com 800.759.6985 Packet Pg. 463 6.1.a CPICRFTMPaints & Anodizing High Performance Architectural Coatings Unique combination of KynarT M, Trinar®, or HylarT M fluoropolymer* and TGIC Polyester resins. CPI DAYLIGHTING ALUMINUM FINISHES CPI Uaylighlrng offers a urine range olalumfnufn finishes Iron (-,11V?F T" - Pantpinishes toAnodiarLa >rnishes. MITI Finish - Unfinished Aluminum. Aluminum will have exposed die lines and scratches. CPI Corrosion Resistant Finish Standard (CPICRF - STANDARD) is CPI Daylighting's standard high performance architectural TGIC Polyester resin powder coating. It is environmentally friendly because it does not omit VOC gases to the atmosphere. It is the most economic paint CPI Daylighting can offer. It meets AAMA 2603 with a large range of standard colors to choose from. It comes with a 1 year standard warranty with an option for a 5 year extended warranty. CPI Corrosion Resistant Finish Premium (CPICRF - PREMIUM) is CPI Daylighting's premium high performance architectural polymer resin powder coating. It is environmentally friendly because it does not omit VOC gases to the atmosphere. It meets AAMA 2604 with a large range of standard colors to choose from. It comes with a 10 year standard warranty. CPI Corrosion Resistant Finish Premium Plus (CPICRF - PREMIUM PLUS) is CPI Daylighting's premium plus high performance architectural 70% PVDF base resin wet paint. It meets AAMA 2605 with a large range of standard colors to choose from. It comes with a 10 year standard warranty with an option for a 20 year extended warranty. CPI Corrosion Resistant Finish Exotic or Metallic (CPICRF - EXOTIC METALLIC). Same performance as CPI 70% PVDF base resin wet paint. It comes with a 10 year standard warranty only. CPI Anodize Finishes. CPI Daylighting offers Clear Anodize, Bronze Anodize and Black Anodize Finishes. The Anodized finish comes with a 1 year standard warranty with an option for a 5 year extended warranty. Bronze and Black anodize can be matched with all types of CPICRF paints. *Trinar is a registered trademark of Akzo Nobel *Kynar is a registered trademark of Atofina *Hylar is a registered trademark of Ausimont USA IV, ^ CP1 Daylighting Building Envelope So utions 04 Packet Pg. 464 CPICRFTM Standard Most Economical Med Gloss Cat Black WS Clay Hartford Green #84 Quaker Bronze PFB-611-S6 PHS4-60010 DSG3-20014 DNS4-2008 i WS Bronze WS Brick Red #83 WS Eggshell WS White PHS4-20081 DRS3-20022 PWS4-20033 PWS4-60011 CPICRFTM Premium Additional custom colors available upon request Nighthawk Gray Eggshell LT Hartford Green Dried Wheat Brick Red YL-202U YA-201 U YK-2000 YU-2007 YG-2337 Sage Brown Boysenberry Burnt Sun Jet Black Bahama Brown YT-2047 YG-204U YU-2037 YN-2000 YT-2057 i mmm Sand Bone White Aspen Moss Patina Green Colonial White YD-203U YA-2000 YL-2517 YK-2757 YA-2447 CPICRFTM Premium Plus Achie, ve addilianal impactand i.,lb+ancy Abalone White Beige Sand LT Gingersnap KW3C37962 CFV2288 KH3C37954 KH3C34579 CFT2942 Colors are not exact - For exact color please order color samples on aluminum Slight color variation can be expected in production applica tion Quaker Bronze Green Black CFV2297 CFV2287 CFV2300 CP1 D ayl i g h t i n g &skiing Envelope Soluhor),; ►0 2 l 3 *� ob O d E Packet Pg. 465 CASCADIA WINDOWS Description The 400 series is used for fixed, strip, and large 'punched' window applications, with a deep frame section to permit larger spans. It combines with our operable windows to provide versatile glazing systems. Standard Features These standards represent the quality and product features for all Cascadia windows and doors. Each product is then custom manufactured to project -specific design criteria; upgrades are available for even higher performance. Glazing Units: IGU's are installed from the interior side. ■ Standard IGU: Cardinal LoE2 2700 All climate Solar Control. More efficient glazing units also available. • Sound Transmission Class: STC ratings for glass only will range from low 30's to low 40's. • Low conductivity stainless steel edge spacer. • Dual edge seal (PIB and Silicone). Finish: Hydro TuffOO waterborne 2-part acrylic coating available in 9 standard colours, and virtually any custom colour. Joint Construction: Joints are butt connections and mechanically fastened together with shear blocks. Continuous bead of silicone sealant along joints. All fasteners are stainless steel. Installation: Our preferred installation method is a combination of extruded aluminum clip anchors along the window head and jambs with a back dam angle at the sill. This allows for units to be installed from the interior or exterior. Traditional nail flange attachment is an option. Options: Grilles, simulated divided lites, etc. Standard colours (left to right, starting at top row): BLACK (201) COMMERCIAL BROWN (872) CLAY(173) LIGHTHOUSE RED (511) Wl"ER 0145) RAIN WARE 1NHITE (102) MOONLITE MOSS (632) GRAY (310-25) 400 Series EXT. II j1iNT, c m E U Q. m DOUBLE GLAZED THERMAL VALUES. U-Value 0.28 O O R-Value 3.57 v SHGC 0.31 fn VLT 0.59 CR 62 O L TRIPLE GLAZED THERMAL VALUES: U-Value 0.17 R-Value 5.88 CD SHGC 0.21 r VLT 0.48 v CR 73 r AIR LEAKAGE RESISTANCE: Fixed 0.002 cfm/ft2 (Fixed) WATER LEAKAGE RESISTANCE: Fixed 15 psf (730 Pa) DESIGN WIND PRESSURE: Fixed 65 psf (3120 Pa) NAFS-08 & 11 PRIMARY DESIGNATORS: CW-PG65-FW — 78" x 99" (1981 x 2515 mm) CW-PG65-FW — 99" x 78" (2515 x 1981 mm) Packet Pg. 466 6.1.a C r a Packet Pg. 467 1 r� Outside Corner Need details? NorthCladQ provides proven details in many formats for download at www, northclad com. All of our detailing solutions have been tested to ASTM 283, 330, and 331 requirements for air, water, and structural performance. Vertical Joint Find what you're looking for at www.northclad.com R Field Fastener Horizontal �[ Joint r 1 l NorthClado Rainscreen Solutions 11831 Beverly Park Road, Building C Everett, WA 98204 ■■■ Northon "'Cfad° ralnscreen solutions Visit www.northclad.com today to MEN NorthClad® EF North::: Clack 0 . . . products. rainscreen solutions Exposed Fastener Panel System rt (Q C1 O� 01 00 Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) The EF Series Exposed Fastener Rainscreen System Extruded aluminum channel segments continuous at vertical joints providing vertical support and drainage. Use stainless steel fasteners to create a unique look, or fasteners with prefinished heads to blend in with the panel material. Integral prefinished aluminum Flashing runs the entire length of each panel; providing additional protection from wind -driven rain at horizontal joints. Panels available in a variety of rigid, weather resistant materials with multiple color, finish, and texture options. painted aluminum to match fiberglass window frames. J Find what you're looking for at www.northclad.com R Strong. Don't take unnecessary risk by mounting your wall system to anything but high strength, extruded aluminum channel. NorthClad@ EF Series cladding systems feature prefinished, engineered extruded aluminum substrate channels which provide a light -weight, rugged subgirt system for panel attachment. Smart. The NorthClad@ EF Series is engineered to minimize routing and forming providing significant cost savings. CNC fabrication ensures accurate panel sizes every time while on -site modification of most panel materials is simple and straight forward, allowing for greater flexibility and quicker installation. EF Series panels can be installed out of sequence, and replacing damaged panels is quick and easy. Tested. The NorthClad@ EF Series panel system is engineered and tested to meet stringent air, water, and structural performance requirements per ASTM 283, 330, and 331 Additionally, NorthClad@ provides proven, simple detailing solutions and integral components to ensure proper ventilation through custom perforated channels, secure fastening into an engineered substrate, and effective flashing of openings and penetrations Attachment: PLN20160027 ADB staff report with attachments (1493 : Madrona School Replacement) Capable. Colors, gloss levels, and finish textures can be tuned to meet your specific project requirements. Fastener patterns and finishes can be adjusted to contrast, or blend in. Curved edges are possible as well as abstract shapes. NorthClad@ CNC fabrication equipment even allows engraving of patterns, logos, and signage directly into the panels. MEN North ...NO* rainscreen soluti iu