Document Redmond_doc_0d6e33a296

L Project'Management'Group 2020 N 75th St, Seattle, WA 98103 I [PHONE REDACTED] I www.lawtonpmg.com June 26, 2018 Via Email - Ben Sticka, Planner City of Redmond 15670 NE 85th Street PO Box 97010 Redmond, WA 98073-9710 Re: Emerald Heights Dear Ben; We are hereby formally withdrawing two Site Plan Entitlement and SEPA applications for the following projects: Courtyard Building: LAND 2017-00951 Assisted Living Building: LAND 2016-01735 Assisted Living Building: SEPA 2018-00420 We understand that our new Conditional Use, Site Plan Entitlement and SEPA applications are replacing these. Please let me know if you need additional information. Best regards; Julie Lawton Cc. Lisa Hardy Grant Linacre ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Notice of Application For more information about this project visit www.redmond.gov/landuseapps Project Description: NEW CONSTRUCTION OF INDEPENDENT LIVING BUILDING WITHIN AN EXISTING SENIOR LIVING CAMPUS ("EMERALD HEIGHTS") File Number: LAND-2017-00951 Project Name: EMERALD HEIGHTS COURTYARD Project Information Important Dates Application & Completeness Date: February 2, 2018 Notice of Application Date: February 9, 2018 To allow a minimum comment period as specified in RZC, the City will not issue a decision on this project prior to Mar 2, 2018. If date ends on a weekend or holiday comments are due on the next business day. Application Type: Site Plan Entitlement PREP Regulatory Information Zoning: Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single-Family Urban Consistent with Comprehensive Plan: Yes Applicable Development Regulations: Redmond Municipal Code & Zoning Code Project Location: 10901 176th Cir NE Site Address, If Applicable: Size of Subject Area in Acres:38 Sq.Ft. 0 Process Type: A Public Hearing is not required for this application type. Applicant: Julie Lawton II (see attached flow chart) Public Comment Although comments are accepted up until the decision is issued, submittal of comments during the comment period required in RZC, will ensure comments are considered prior to issuing a decision and will allow staff and/or the applicant to address comments as early in the process as possible. In addition, persons who want to be informed of future actions or would like to become a party of record on this proposal must provide their name and mailing address to the project planner. Submit written comments or name and address to be added as a party of record to the City of Redmond Planning Department, Development Services Center 15670 NE 85th Street, P.O. Box 97010, Mail Stop 2SPL, Redmond, WA 98073-9710, or fax to [PHONE REDACTED]. The final decision on this proposal may be appealed according to the City appeal provision specified in RZC Chapter 21.76, Review Procedures. Required Studies: Existing Environmental Documents, relevant to this application: City Contact Information Project Planner Name: Benjamin Sticka Phone Number: [PHONE REDACTED] Email: [EMAIL REDACTED] Required Permits, not a part of this application: Building Permits, Fire Permits, Public Works Permits, Site Plan Entitlement Parking Analysis, Stormwater Report, Stream Reconnaissance Report, Traffic Study, Tree Health Assessment, Wetland Report, Wildlife Report SEPA Checklist ---PAGE BREAK--- Public Comment Form Project Name: EMERALD HEIGHTS COURTYARD File Number: LAND-2017-00951 Contact Information Name: Phone: Email: Address: State: Zip Code: Comments (Attach additional sheets if necessary) ---PAGE BREAK--- VICINITY MAP Emerald Heights Courtyard Independent Living Building LAND-2017-00951 / Parcel Number(s): [PHONE REDACTED] Project Location ---PAGE BREAK--- CURB LINE C URB LINE C URB LINE C URB LINE C URB LINE C URB LINE C URB LINE 48" C URB LIN E 48" C URB LIN E 48" C URB LIN E UP BUILDING A EXTENTS OF DETENTION VAULT BELOW NEW CONC SIDEWALK UNIT PATIO, TYP RAMP DOWN TO GARAGE LANDSCAPE SLOPED UP TO 364' AT FACADE MIDPOINT STAIR 4 EGRESS WALK AND SITE STAIRS REMOTE GENERATOR FUEL UNIT PATIO, TYP WALKING TRAIL CONCRETE WALL OR ROCKERY; SPLIT CEDAR RAIL ALONG TRAIL AT SITE WALL , TYP. LANDSCAPED AREA CONCRETE WALL; SPLIT CEDAR RAIL ALONG TRAIL AT SITE WALL, TYP. UNIT PATIO, TYP STAIR 1 EGRESS STAIR AND PATH LANDSCAPED AREA WALKING TRAIL CONTINUED FROM EXISTING TRAIL LANDSCAPE SLOPED UP TO 372' AT FACADE MIDPOINT CONC SITE WALL UNIT PATIO, TYP 371 371 363 LANDSCAPED AREA EXTENTS OF DETENTION VAULT BELOW NEW CONC SIDEWALK SETBACK 15'-0" BLDG EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING GARAGE EXHAUST LOUVER GAS METER PER CIVL DS DS DS DS ELECTRIC METER DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DIM TO GRID CORNERS 45'-5 39/128" DIM TO GRID CORNERS 44'-8 109/128" DIM TO GRID CORNERS 61'-3 3/16" PROPERTY LI PROPERTY LINE RAMP DOWN TO GARAGE MIN. BLDG SETBACK 22'-1 73/128" 372 @ RESIDENTIAL LEVEL L1 362 @ PARKING LEVEL L2 352 @ PARKING LEVEL L1 BUILDING B 364 @ RESIDENTIAL LEVEL L1 352 @ PARKING LEVEL L1 DIM TO GRID CORNERS 28'-0 51/256" FIRE ACCESS LANE 20'-0" CLR 377 372 372 372 LINE OF CANOPY ABOVE PLAZA PAVERS LINE OF ARKING GARAGE BELOW DS DS DS DS RAISED PLANTER RAISED PLANTER 372 LINE OF PARKING GARAGE BELOW DS 364 PAVED SEATING AREA SITE STAIRS 364' - 0" 364 364 364 1" = 50'-0" 1 SITE PLAN - PREP PUBLIC NOTICE PROJECT NUMBER 2015146 EMERALD HEIGHTS - COURTYARD INDEPENDENT LIVING BUILDING 12.07.2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- Process Flow Chart for: Site Plan Entitlement Applications Site Plan Entitlement applications follow the Type II process. The Type II process includes review by the Technical Committee, with the Technical Committee as the decision maker. Design Review Board approval is typically required. There is no public hearing requirement. ---PAGE BREAK--- If Technical Committee is ready to issue a decision Cycle repeats until Technical Committee is ready to issue a decision Application Submitted 1st Technical Committee Review If Additional Information is needed Application resubmitted by applicant 2nd Technical Committee review Notice of Application Posted/Mailed 1 Notice of Decision is mailed to Parties of Record 3 If appealed, Notice of Appeal Hearing Sent to Parties of Record 4 Hearing Examiner issues decision on appeal 6 If Hearing Examiner’s Decision on Appeal is appealed to the City Council, notice of Closed Record City Council Appeal Hearing is sent to all parties entitled to participate in hearing 7 Closed Record City Council Appeal Hearing Held 8 Technical Committee requests Additional Information from applicant, OR is ready to issue a decision on the application Denotes Action Point for Interested Parties Denotes Applicant Action Denotes City Action Appeal Hearing Held 5 City Council issues decision on appeal 9 If Design Review Board Review is Required If DRB approval is required, there is typically at least one consultation meeting and one decision meeting to review and issue a decision on architectural, site and landscape design. The DRB decision is required prior to Technical Committee issuing a decision on project. The DRB decision is included in the decision issued by the Technical Committee 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Notes on Participation Points 1-9 Notice of Application for (completed within 14 days of application): Sent to: Applicant, property owners and residents within 500 feet Posted: On site, City Hall, Library, Internet. Who May Participate? Any interested party may submit comments prior to decision to establish themselves as Party of Record. You must become a Party of Record to reserve right to appeal the Technical Committee’s Decision. Although comments are accepted up until the decision is issued, submittal of comments during the 21 day comment period is encouraged to allow staff and/or the applicant to incorporate changes as early in the design process as possible. #3-Notice of Decision (sent the day of decision issuance): Sent to: Applicant and Parties of Record Posted: No posting on site Can the decision be appealed? Yes, the Technical Committee decision may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. However only the applicant and Parties of Record can appeal. When must an appeal be submitted? Appeals must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on the 14th day following the issuance of the decision. #4-Notice of Hearing Examiner Appeal Hearing: Sent to: Applicant and Parties of Record Posted: No posting on site Hearing Examiner Appeal Hearing Held: Who can participate? The appellant, the applicant and the City shall be designated parties to the appeal. Each party may participate in the appeal hearing by presenting testimony or calling witnesses to present testimony. Interested persons, groups, associations, or other entities who have not appealed may participate only if called by one of the parties to present information; provided, that the Examiner may allow non-parties to present relevant testimony if allowed under the Examiner’s rules of procedure. #2-Design Review Board Review (if required): Notice: Notices of DRB meetings are not provided on a project specific basis. However DRB meetings are held regularly on the 1st and 3rd Thursday evenings of each month (with some exceptions). Who May Participate? Any interested party may attend the Design Review Board meetings and may submit comments at the meetings. Can I appeal the Design Review Board’s Decision? The DRB decision and associated conditions are incorporated into the Technical Committee decision for the project. Therefore, if one wishes to appeal a DRB condition, one must wait until the Technical Committee issues the final decision on the project and follow the appeal procedures noted therein. #9-City Council issues decision: When: Typically within two weeks following the Closed Record Appeal Hearing. Notice Sent To: Applicant, Appellant and/or their representatives Appeal Provision: The final decision on the appeal is appealable to King County Superior Court within 21 days from issuance of Notice. To have standing to appeal, one must meet the criteria under the Land Use Petition Act #7-Notice of City Council Closed Record Appeal Hearing: Sent to: The applicant, appellant and/or representatives of these parties Posted: No posting on site #6-Hearing Examiner issues decision on appeal: When: The decision is issued within 14 days after hearing Who receives the decision? Applicant , appellant and anyone who participated in the hearing Who can request reconsideration? Any person who participated in the hearing may file a request for reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner within 10 business days of the date of the Hearing Examiner’s decision. What if a Party of Record requests reconsideration? The Hearing Examiner shall act within 14 days after the filing of the request by either denying the request, issuing a revised decision, or calling for an additional public hearing. Can the Hearing Examiner Decision on the appeal be appealed to City Council? Yes, the decision on the appeal may be appealed within 14 days following the expiration of the reconsideration period. Only the City, project applicant or any person who participated in the appeal hearing may appeal. #8-City Council Closed Record Appeal Hearing Held: Who May Participate? The applicant, the appellant, the applicable department Director or representatives of these parties. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- www.redmond.gov I facebook.com/CityofRedmond I twitter.com/CityofRedmond September 28, 2017 Ben Sticka, Planner City of Redmond [EMAIL REDACTED] To: Residents, Property Owners, Interested Parties Subject: Neighborhood Discussion on Proposed Project - Emerald Heights, LAND 2017-00951 You are invited to attend a neighborhood discussion on Emerald Heights, LAND 2017-00951. This discussion is being held early in the process, prior to City of Redmond Technical Committee action. Please spread the word and plan to attend! We’d like you to review the proposal, ask the applicant and city staff questions, and provide us with your input. Please see the attached vicinity map for additional information. *Please note, this is a new project that was submitted to the city on Sept 27, 2017 and is a different project in a different location from previously submitted Emerald Heights project 2016-01735. Thursday, October 26th, 2017 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. City Council Chambers Redmond City Hall 15670 NE 85th Street Redmond, WA 98052 Applicant: Emerald Heights c/o Julie Lawton who can be reached at (206) 419-6230 or at [EMAIL REDACTED] Project Location: Proposed building at 10901 176th Cir NE, corner of property/accessed from 176th Ave NE. Description: New construction of independent living building(s) within the existing Emerald Heights campus. Two buildings over a single, below-grade parking structure. The west building will include additional sub-grade parking level plus three levels of residential units. The east building will have three levels of residential units. Project will have a total of 42 independent living units. If you would like to be added to the Interested Party list (which helps you stay informed throughout the review of this project), please contact me. To learn more about projects, please visit redmond.gov/landactions. Finally, feel free to contact me or the applicant with questions! Ben Sticka, Planner [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- E ---PAGE BREAK--- N ---PAGE BREAK--- NE 111TH Emerald Heights Redmond High NE 104th ST • 42 Unit Independent Living Facility • Two over below grade parking structure • Approx. 45,000 sq. f.tP SUBJECT SITE –IL IL Bldg Bldg NE 111TH St NE 111TH St 176th Ave 176th Ave SITE PLAN VICNITY MAP Education Hill Neighborhood ---PAGE BREAK--- S PREP Meetings – 1 of 3 Design Review Board Meetings 1 of 3 Project Submittal – 9/27/17 Technical Committee Recommendation to Deny or Approve Notice of Decision is sent out w/14 appeal period to Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner decision within 10 business days 21 day appeal period to Superior Court In Process Public Participation Future Step Neighborhood Meeting – 10/26/17 SEPA – Environmental Review – 14 day Comment Period – 14 day appeal Notice of Application – 21 Day Comment Period *Assuming all timelines are met, the decision could occur in March *Public Comments accepted through the entire process Complete ---PAGE BREAK--- N ---PAGE BREAK--- Q Contact Information• www.redmond.gov/development.codesandrules/landuseactionnotices www.redmond.gov ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE For more information about this project visit www.redmond.gov/landuseapps PROJECT INFORMATION IMPORTANT DATES PROJECT NAME: EMERALD HEIGHTS COURTYARD COMMENT PERIOD Depending upon the proposal, a comment period may not be required. An is placed next to the applicable comment period provision. There is no comment period for this DNS. Please see below for appeal provisions. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2), and the lead agency will not make a decision on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments can be submitted to the Project Planner, via phone, fax (425)556-2400, email or in person at the Development Services Center located at 15670 NE 85th Street, Redmond, WA 98052. Comments must be submitted by 04/10/2018. APPEAL PERIOD You may appeal this determination to the City of Redmond Office of the City Clerk, Redmond City Hall, 15670 NE 85th Street, P.O. Box 97010, Redmond, WA 98073-9710, no later than 5:00 p.m. on 04/24/2018, by submitting a completed City of Redmond Appeal Application Form available on the City’s website at www.redmond.gov or at City Hall. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. DATE OF DNS ISSUANCE: March 27, 2018 For more information about the project or SEPA procedures, please contact the project planner. SEPA FILE NUMBER: SEPA-2018-00093 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SEPA for Em Heights Courtyard (LAND-2017-00951) PROJECT LOCATION: 10901 176TH CIR NE SITE ADDRESS: APPLICANT: Julie Lawton Lorie Limson Cook LEAD AGENCY: City of Redmond The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the requirements of environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation measures have been adequately addressed through the City’s regulations and Comprehensive Plan together with applicable State and Federal laws. Additionally, the lead agency has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment as described under SEPA. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. SIGNATURE: Planning Director Karen Anderson RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: CITY CONTACT INFORMATION PROJECT PLANNER NAME: PHONE NUMBER: EMAIL: Benjamin Sticka RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: SIGNATURE: [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] 15670 NE 85th Street Redmond, WA 98052 Address: Maxine Whattam Interim Public Works Director ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of 27 CITY OF REDMOND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PROJECT ACTION (Revised 5/27/15) Purpose of the Checklsit: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the City of Redmond identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply" and indicate the reason why the question “does not apply”. It is not adequate to submit responses such as “N/A” or “does not apply”; without providing a reason why the specific section does not relate or cause an impact. Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. If you need more space to write answers attach them and reference the question number. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the City can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. When you submit this checklist the City may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Planner Name: Date of Review: Ben Sticka 2/1/18 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 2. Name of applicant: 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting checklist: 6. Give an accurate, brief description of the proposal’s scope and nature: i. Acreage of the site: ii. Number of dwelling units/ buildings to be constructed: iii. Square footage of dwelling units/ buildings being added: iv. Square footage of pavement being added: v. Use or principal activity: vi. Other information: 7. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 38 acres, approximately We propose beginning construction Summer/Fall 2018 Retirement Community Independent Living Units 11,100 sf 106,341 sf 42 City of Redmond 9/22/17, Revised 1/31/18 Emerald Heights 10907 176th Circle NE, Redmond WA 98052 Contact: Julie Lawton [PHONE REDACTED] Emerald Heights Emerald Heights: Courtyard - Independent Living Building BTS BTS BTS BTS BTS BTS BTS BTS BTS BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 3 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only 8. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? Yes No If yes, explain. 9. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared or will be prepared directly related to this proposal. 10. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? Yes No If yes, explain. 11. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. 12. 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. Emerald Heights is an existing Retirement Community on 38 acres zoned R6. Proposed project: new 42-unit independent living building with 2 structures of Type VA construction over a single below grade parking structure of Type IA construction. The west structure will have an additional subgrade parking level, plus 3 levels of residential units. The east structure will have 3 levels of residential units. Site Plan approval, Design Review, and construction permits (building, clearing and grading, storm water, etc) together with corresponding SEPA review. The new assisted living building was submitted for permit but is currently under review with the city. ✔ Critical Aquifer Recharge Area updated memo Soils Report Updated Traffic memos NPDES General Stormwater Permit Critical Areas Report Recertification Memo A new assisted living building is also proposed. We will also be remodeling the interior of the Health Center changing the existing assisted living units on the first floor to private skilled nursing rooms. ✔ BTS BTS BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 4 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only 13. 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. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site Flat Rolling Hilly Steep slopes Mountainous Other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Describe location and areas of different topography. There are varied gradual slopes throughout the project site. Bands of slope in excess of 40% exist along the west edge of the campus, behind several of the cottage buildings. This appears to be the result of man-made fills to establish level pads for these buildings. To the west of these steep slopes is a broad forested swale with a class III stream meandering through it south to north. The remainder of the site has been developed and is comprised of rolling terrain. There are no steep slopes in proximity to the proposed new Independent Living Building and underground associated parking. ✔ See Appendix for the Vicinity Map and full Legal Description. Emerald Heights 10901 176th Circle NE Redmond, Washington 98052 PCL 2 of REDMOND LLA #LLR-88-22 rec #[PHONE REDACTED] LESS N 250 FT OF S 1/2 OF NE 1/4 & N 250 FT OF S 1/2 OF NW 1/4 PER DEED REC #[PHONE REDACTED] BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 5 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, mulch)? 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. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? Yes No If yes, describe. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, location and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. About what percentage of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 62 percent of the proposed site will be impervious surfaces and the remaining 38 percent of the site will be pervious landscaping. This includes the entire campus and future proposed assisted living building. This is less than the maximum 65% impervious allowed by code. Limited erosion could occur during construction. Earthwork activities required for construction would be designed and engineered in accordance with City of Redmond standards. Appropriate Best Management Practices would be employed to reduce the potential for erosion to occur. The site will be stripped of approximately 1,479 cubic yards of organic topsoil prior to site mass excavation. Mass excavation for the building and site grading will require removal of approximately 15,479 cubic yards. Total excavation including existing topsoil stripping and building and site mass excavation is approx. 16,958 cubic yards. These will be hauled off site to an approved location. The fill for the site includes approximately 96 cubic yards, which will be brought in from an approved location. A portion of the slope behind two of the cottages at the southwest corner of the campus experienced sloughing in 1993. This was repaired by installing quarry spall ballasting and french drains per geotechnical engineer's recommendations. The area has remained stable since then. It will remain undisturbed and is not in the vicinity of the subject project. ✔ Per the Geologic map of the Redmond Quadrangle, Washington, by James P. Minard and Derek B. Booth, dated 1988, the soils on site are classified as recessional till (Qvt). See Soils Report prepared by AESI for additional information. BTS BTS BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 6 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. i. Does the landfill or excavation involve over 100 cubic yards throughout the lifetime of the project? 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air (i.e. dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke, and greenhouse gases) 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. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? Yes No If yes, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be implemented to ensure minimal amounts of dust and exhaust fumes leave the site. BMP measures include watering of the site as needed during construction of the project to help control dust and other particulates; street cleaning/sweeping, minimizing vehicle and equipment idling to reduce exhaust emissions. Off-site emissions consist primarily of vehicle emissions from nearby roads. ✔ During project construction, heavy equipment operation and workers' vehicles would generate exhaust emissions into the immediate vicinity. Additionally, dust particulates generated primarily by construction equipment will be produced. Yes. Site fill includes approximately 96 cubic yards, and site excavation includes approximately 16,958 cubic yards. Contractor will follow city approved TESC plan with specified erosion control measures, including use of plastic sheeting, silt fences, mulch check dams, and vegetated swales. Cut and fill slopes will be re-vegetated soon after grading. Soil in stockpiles will be covered or protected. Project will comply with City's storm water management practices during and post construction. BTS BTS BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 7 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only 3. Water a. Surface 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? Yes No If yes, describe type, location and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Provide a sketch if not shown on site plans. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? Yes No If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Note approximate distance between surface waters and any construction, fill, etc. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Yes No yes, give generaldescription, purpose, and approximatequantities if known. The proposal will not require surface water withdrawals or diversions. ✔ ✔ No material will be placed or removed from surface water or wetlands. No, the previously described critical areas are not located next to the proposed expansion area. ✔ A Class III stream traverses the western, undeveloped portion of the site, draining from south to north. The stream has steep slopes and has been surveyed and delineated as a Critical Area. ✔ BTS BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 8 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? Yes No If yes, note location on the site plan. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharge of waste materials to surface waters? Yes No If yes, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. 7. Is your property located within the Bear/Evans Creek Watershed (see attached map)? Yes No If yes, answer questions 8 & 9. If no, go to the next section. 8. Provide details on how you propose to maximize infiltration of runoff to recharge associated stream during the summer months. 9. Does your project propose an increase in fecal coliform levels in the surface water? If so, describe impacts. No increase in fecal coliform levels in surface water is anticipated. The project maximizes landscaped area, and retains existing vegetation to the maximum extent feasible to allow for some limited infiltration however due to site constraints and infiltration BMP setbacks, no infiltration facilities are proposed on-site. See items 8 & 9 below. ✔ No waste will be discharged into the storm system. ✔ The proposal is not within a 100-year floodplain. ✔ BTS BTS BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 9 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Ground 1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purpose? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Yes No Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing 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. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1. Describe the source(s) of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection, transport/conveyance, and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water runoff will primarily be generated from new and existing roadways, roofs, parking areas, and associated landscaping. Additional runoff will occur in proportion to the total new impervious and cleared surfaces created. Runoff will be collected in a network of catch basins and conveyed to the proposed detention vault prior to release to the existing piped system. No waste material is anticipated to be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources. No ground water is anticipated to be withdrawn from a well, nor water discharged to ground water. ✔ BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 10 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. 3. Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any. 4. Plants a. Select types of vegetation found on the site: Deciduous Tree: Alder Maple Aspen Other Evergreen Tree: Cedar Fir Pine Other Shrubs Grass Pasture Crop or Grain Orchards, Vineyards, or Other Permanent Crops Wet soil plants: Cattail Buttercup Bullrush SkunkCabbage Other Water plants: Water lily Eelgrass ___0LOIRLOBBB Other ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ We will comply with the City of Redmond's storm water management practices during and post construction. Runoff will be collected and routed through proposed detention facilities in compliance with the City of Redmond's flow control requirements. No, we are staying within our parcel. Existing discharge off-site will remain the same. Small amounts of pollutants normally associated with urban development could enter the collection/storm management system and theoretically be conveyed off-site. BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 11 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only Other types of vegetation (please list) b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? c. Provide the number of significant and landmark trees located on the site and estimate the number proposed to be removed and saved in the table below. Note: Since a SEPA Determination is issued early on in the project’s review process; the information above is a preliminary estimate only and could change during the development review process. * DBH – Diameter at breast height d. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Tree Type Total Removed Saved Percentage saved Landmark (>30” dbh*) Significant – 30” dbh*) Percentage No known threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the site. - 87.4% 12.6% 100% 87% 655 95 750 89% 8 1 9 All vegetation within the construction limits would be removed except 8 significant trees. The majority of this vegetation are woodland plants, established landscape plants, deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs. The site is fully landscaped with many native plants and trees, specimen plants and trees and wet soil plants associated with detention ponds. BTS BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 12 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only e. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: f. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. 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. Birds: Hawk Heron Eagle Songbirds Other Mammals: Deer Bear Elk Beaver Fish: Bass Salmon Trout Herring Shellfish Other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? Yes No If yes, explain. The site is not part of a mitigation route. ✔ No known threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the site. Refer to Critical Areas Report. ✔ ✔ There are no known noxious weeds and invasive species at this site. Proposed landscaping will visually connect and integrate with the existing campus landscape. Proposed landscaping will include native trees like Douglas Fir and Western Red Cedar to help re-establish the evergreen tree stands that were removed for construction. Shrubs and groundcovers have been chosen based on their drought tolerance and attributes to reduce ongoing maintenance. Many of the shrubs and groundcovers are natives and all are in harmony with the lush natural aesthetic of the surrounding landscape. BTS BTS BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 13 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? Yes No If yes, generally describe. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. Energy efficient lamps and ballasts, automated lighting controls for interior common areas and exterior lighting. High-efficiency split systems provide heating and cooling to residential units. No, Emerald Heights is a self contained campus surround by many trees. Redmond High School borders the majority of the south property line and 176th Ave NE runs along the east and north side. Single family residents are located on the east and north side of the campus. The undeveloped wooded area is on the west side of campus. ✔ Primary heating/cooling achieved with electric split system heat pumps. Natural ventilation used for residential apartments. Roof-top air conditioning units used for common areas. Common areas heated with gas heat in root-top unit. No known invasive animal species on or near the site. The trees replaced on the site will include minimum of 50% evergreens, which will serve to support the wildlife and provide canopy and habitat for birds and small mammals. A number of the understory plant material bear fruit and will provide seasonal foraging material for animals in the area. BTS BTS BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 14 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk or fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? Yes No If yes, describe. 1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past practices. 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. 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. (for example: flammable liquids, combustible liquids, flammable gases, combustible or flammable fibers, flammable solids, unstable materials, corrosives, oxidizing materials, organic peroxides, nitromethane, ammonium nitrate, highly toxic material, poisonous gas, smokeless powder, black sporting powder, ammunition, explosives, cryogenics, medical gas, radioactive material, biological material or high piled storage (over 12’in most cases). There are no known toxic or hazardous chemicals at this site; except, there are personal oxygen tanks used by the residents at the skilled nursing facility. They are not piled high. We also process soiled linens in the soiled utility rooms at the skilled nursing facility. There are no known hazardous chemicals or conditions at this site. There are no known contamination at this site. Although unlikely, under normal operating conditions, construction/maintenance vehicles/equipment could potentially leak lubricants and fuels onto the ground; mis-use and improper disposal of household cleaners, fertilizers, and petroleum products used in vehicle operation /maintenance. ✔ BTS BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 15 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. Describe special emergency services that might be required. 5. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic equipment, operation, other)? 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. On short term basis, site preparation and construction noise would be generated. On the long term basis, there will be some additonal traffic noise generated from this building. Construction hours in the residential zone will be between 7 am to 7 pm on weekdays, 9 am to 6 pm on Saturdays, as allowed by City of Redmond Code 6.36.050 (5)b. The immediate vicinity consists of residential developments served by a collector roadway and Redmond High School to the south. Existing noise sources are primarily traffic along adjacent streets. All noise during construction will be within the City's noise limits. State regulations regarding safety and the handling of hazardous materials would apply during the construction process and operation of the facility. No known special emergency services are required at this time. Emerald Heights is currently serviced by the Redmond Fire Department and the local Emergency Medical Services BTS BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 16 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. 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. b. Has the site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? Is 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 non-farm or non-forest use? 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, this project is within a developed area. No, this site has not been used for agriculture, farmland or forest land. The current site is a Life Care Retirement Community with independent living units, assisted living units, skilled nursing units and support areas. The adjacent properties are single-family homes and Redmond High School. To reduce the use of cars, Emerald Heights provides bus transportation for their residents for appointments and errands. Also, they organize bus transportation to entertainment activities. This will not change with the addition of the Courtyard building. Staff are encouraged to ride public transportation and car pool. Construction activity will be limited to hours as specified by the City of Redmond. BTS BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 17 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only c. Describe any structures on site. d. Will any structures be demolished? Yes No If yes, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? Yes No If yes, specify. (If unsure, check with City) The overall site includes a class III stream and steep slopes, which are both environmentally sensitive or critical areas located at the west portion of the campus. However the project area is outside of these environmentally sensitive areas. ✔ There is no shoreline master program designation for this site. Single-Family Urban R-6 Single-Family Urban Residential Four steel and wood framed carports will be demolished. ✔ The present campus consists of one large multi-unit, multi-function main building, ringed by 12 duplex residential buildings (cottages). A pool/fitness building, a multi-purpose building, a 42 unit independent living building, a future 54 unit assisted living building, a maintenance facility and storage building, and numerous carports. All buildings are 35' tall or less. BTS BTS BTS BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 18 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: n. What percentage of the building will be used for: Warehousing Manufacturing Office Retail Employee count is 205 full-time, 64 part-time, and 33 relief workers. 0 0 0 0 This proposal is not nearby any agricultural and forest lands. This proposal is compatible with the existing and projected land uses per the City of Redmond's code. Additionally, the project is going through the City's Design Review process. People would not be displaced by this project. People would not be displaced by this project. Campus residents: 380 in independent living(IL), 56 in assisted living (AL) (includes memory care), 50 in skilled nursing. Future AL bldg under separate permit will net 14 added units. This project adds 42 IL units. BTS BTS BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 19 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only Service (specify) Other (specify) Residential 0. What is the proposed I.B.C. construction type? p. How many square feet are proposed (gross square footage including all floors, mezzanines, etc.)? q. How many square feet are available for future expansion (gross square footage including floors, mezzanines and additions)? 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The density bonus from the City of Redmond that applies to Emerald Heights requires that 25% of housing above the number allowed by the underlying zone fit the criteria for affordable housing. Compliance reporting is submission of the annual report. Emerald Heights is in compliance with this requirement. There isn't any future expansion of the new Courtyard building anticipated. Parking Level P01: 24,745 sf West Structure: Parking Level P02 10,958 sf, L1 11,761 sf, L2 11,546 sf, L3 11,546 sf; West Building Total 45,811 sf East Structure: L1 12,123 sf, L2 11,831 sf, L3 11,831 sf; East Building Total 35,785 sf Project Total: 106,341 sf The parking garage level is Type IA The residential levels are Type VA 66% 34% Parking/Storage 0 BTS BTS BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 20 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas? What is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: A significant setback is proposed from the south property line facing Redmond High School, approx range: 22 ft to 44 ft. Within that setback, Emerald Heights will maximize the screening of the building using existing significant trees and new vegetation, including more than 25 trees. There will also be 4 existing significant trees over 48' feet tall and new vegetation, including 8 trees at the east end, next to the campus entrance. This landscape will promote compatibility and provide a transition to the single family residential areas across the street from the Emerald Heights campus entry. This project will not alter or obstruct any views. It will be partially visible behind existing tall evergreens and deciduous trees on the east end, as you enter the campus along 176th. It will also be partially visible from behind a landscaped storm detention pond on the northern portion of the Redmond High School property, south of this project. The buildings will not exceed 35' in height except items allowed by code. Building facade materials consist primarily of residential style fiber-cement lap siding and panels with some accent feature materials at key locations only, to be presented to the Design Review Board. There are no housing impacts to be reduced or controlled. No units will be eliminated with this proposal BTS BTS BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 21 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day or night would it mainly occur? b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are several parks in the vicinity: Johathan Hartan Park, Farrel McWhirter Park, Sammamish River Regional Park and Marymoor Park. All new units will have window blinds and lights at the new exterior entries will be shielded to focus light on the doors and pedestrian walks. There are no known existing off-site light sources that may affect our project. Lighting from the finished project will not be a safety hazard nor interfere with views from the new units, the existing units or from the neighborhood. Any additional lighting will be consistent with the lighting that currently exists on site. There will be some additional light at the new entries, landscape patios, and the connected pedestrian paths. BTS BTS BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 22 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? Yes No If yes, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: 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, generally describe. There are no known places or objects on or next to the site that are part of or are eligible for any preservation registers. This is not applicable per our response to item b above. The project will not displace any existing recreational uses. ✔ BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 23 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only 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. 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 Archaeological and Historic Preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. This is not applicable per our response to items a and b above. This is not applicable per our response to items a and b above. There are no known landmarks or evidence of such importance on or next to the site which was confirmed by the City of Redmond. BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 24 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only 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. b. Is the site currently or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? Yes No If yes, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle, or transportation facilities not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No new public roadways or improvements are proposed except as required by the City of Redmond as shown in our PREP submittals. Project will eliminate 50 surface parking stalls. Completed project will add 9 surface stalls and 33 underground stalls = 42 new stalls per RZC Table 21.08.090C Retirement Resident parking requirements at minimum 1 stall, maximum 1 stall per non-skilled nursing unit. The site is directly served by public transit with a King County Metro transit bus stop at the main driveway along 176th Avenue NE. This stop is served by Route 221. Public transit does not enter the private campus site. ✔ Emerald Heights is located north of Redmond High School, south of Abbey Road , west of 176th Avenue NE, and east of a residential community. The main access driveway on 176th Avenue NE is to remain. There is an existing emergency-only driveway on Abbey Road. BTS BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 25 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. f. How many weekday vehicular trips (one way) per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur: - a.m. and - p.m. How many of these trips occur in the a.m. peak hours? How many of these trips occur in the p.m. peak hours? What percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and non-passenger vehicles)? What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? 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. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. Emerald Heights provides transportation for residents. There are no proposed measures since traffic generated will change very little per our response to item e above. No, the proposal will not interfere with or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products. The numbers above are based upon the Traffic Impact Analysis report for the entire Emerald Heights Master Plan completed in 2010 and updated in the Traffic Confirmation Analysis memo dated July 13, 2017. 3% 11 6 5:00 4:00 7:30 6:30 110 There is no water, rail or air transportation in the immediate vicinity of this site. BTS BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 26 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only 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)? Yes No If yes, generally describe. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. 16. a. Select utilities currently available at the site: Electricity Natural Gas Water Refuse Service Telephone Sanitary Sewer Septic System Other ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ The project would be designed and constructed with adequate fire flow, properly located fire hydrants, and appropriate access roadway to accommodate aid, fire, and police protection vehicles. The completed project would not result in a increased need for police and fire protection, or emergency medical service. The proposed project would not create additional students for the schools since this is a retirement community and children do not live at Emerald Heights. ✔ BTS BTS BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 27 of 27 To Be Completed By Applicant Evaluation for Agency Use Only 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. 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: Position and Agency/Organization: Relationship of Signer to Project: Date Submitted: Existing on-site water, sewer, power, gas & telecommunication utilities will be extended to serve the proposed building. Stormwater runoff will be collected and conveyed to 2 new detention vaults. Water, sewer & storm drainage utilities are provided by City of Redmond; power & gas by Puget Sound Energy; communications services by various local providers. that the lead agency is relying on them to make its de 9/22/17, Revised 1/31/18 Owner's Representative Julie Lawton BTS ---PAGE BREAK--- VICINITY MAP Emerald Heights Courtyard Independent Living Building LAND-2017-00951 / Parcel Number(s): [PHONE REDACTED] 10901 - 176th Circle NE (showing 500 foot buffer) Project Location ---PAGE BREAK--- December 7, 2017 Julie Lawton Lawton PMG 2020 N 75th Street, Seattle, WA 98103 Via email: [EMAIL REDACTED] Cc: Lisa Hardy, COE, Emerald Heights Via email: [EMAIL REDACTED] Re: Emerald Heights CAR recertification letter The Watershed Company Reference Number: 161231 Dear Julie: Today I spoke to City of Redmond planner Ben Sticka regarding your Emerald Heights project. He requested a letter to recertify our February 16, 2017 Critical Areas Report (CAR). This letter is intended to satisfy that documentation requirement. As documented in our CAR, the Emerald Heights study identify a stream and wetland on the west side of the property. The stream and wetland delineation figure and site plan included in Appendix A of that report show proposed site improvements are well outside of identified critical areas and associated buffers. Because the project is documented as avoiding critical area impacts, we have not had any further involvement. I am not aware of any new information that would require an update to our CAR referenced below.  The Watershed Company. February 2017. Critical Areas Report: Emerald Heights, Redmond, WA. Prepared for Lisa Hardy, CEO. Please call if you have any questions or if we can provide you with any additional information. Sincerely, Nell Lund, PWS Senior Ecologist ---PAGE BREAK--- ENGINEERING REPORT Stormwater Management Report Draft Round 3 PREP Emeral Heights - Courtyard Building Redmond, WA January 4, 2018 PREPARED BY: COUGHLIN PORTER LUNDEEN 801 Second Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 P [PHONE REDACTED] CONTACT / Jeff Peterson, P.E. PREPARED FOR: Rice Fergus Miller 275 5th Street Suite 100 Bremerton, WA 98337 ---PAGE BREAK--- i Table of Contents Page I. PROJECT OVERVIEW 1 General Description 1 Existing Conditions 1 Proposed Conditions 1 II. DRAINAGE ANALYSIS 2 Upstream Analysis 2 Analysis 2 III. PROPOSED DRAINAGE SYSTEM 3 Flow 3 Table 1: Existing Land Cover 3 Table 2: Proposed Development Land Cover 4 Table 3: Existing and Proposed Conditions Right-of-Way 4 Table 4: Existing and Proposed Condition Peak Flows Vault 1 5 Table 5: Existing and Proposed Condition Peak Flows Vault 2 5 Water Quality Treatment 5 IV. DISCUSSION OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 6 MR Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans 6 MR Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 6 MR Source Control of Pollution 7 MR Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls 7 MR On-Site Stormwater Management 7 MR Runoff Treatment 7 MR Flow Control 7 MR Wetlands Protection 7 MR Operation and Maintenance 7 V. TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL 8 VI. LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT 9 APPENDIX A: FIGURES 11 Figure 1 – Vicinity Map 11 Figure 2 – Wellhead Protection Map 11 Figure 3 – Existing Conditions 11 Figure 4A – Proposed Conditions 11 Figure 4B – Proposed Conditions – Vault 1 11 Figure 4C – Proposed Conditions – Vault 2 11 Figure 4D – Proposed Conditions – TDA 2 11 Figure 4E – Proposed Conditions – Area Swap 11 Figure 4F – Right-of-Way Conditions 11 Figure 5 – Campus Basin 11 Figure 6A – Flow Chart for Determining LID MR #5 Requirements TDA 1 11 Figure 6B – Flow Chart for Determining LID MR #5 Requirements TDA 2 11 Figure 6C – Stormwater Notebook Figure 3.2 (Minimum Requirements Flow Chart) 11 Figure 6D – Flow Chart for Determining LID MR #5 Requirements Right-of-Way 11 Figure 7 – Conveyance Map 11 Figure 8A – Flow Chart for Determining Minimum Requirements TDA 1 11 Figure 8B – Flow Chart for Determining Minimum Requirements TDA 2 11 Figure 8C – Flow Chart for Determining Minimum Requirements Right-of-Way 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- ii APPENDIX B: ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS 12 MGS Flood Report Vault 1 12 MGS Flood Report Vault 2 12 APPENDIX C: CONVEYANCE ANALYSIS 13 APPENDIX D: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT 14 APPENDIX E: OPERATIONS AND MAINTANENCE MANUAL 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- I. PROJECT OVERVIEW General Description Emerald Heights first opened its doors in Redmond in 1992. A major additions and renovations project occurred in 2002 creating additional living units and expanding service facilities. Currently, Emerald Heights is in the process of a multi-phase additions and renovations project, the first of which was completed in 2012. The first phase of construction included the construction of a new fitness center, clinic connection, and multiple parking areas around the site. Phase 1 construction also included the expansion of an existing detention pond, first constructed as a part of the 2002 expansion, to mitigate the addition of impervious surfaces. The second phase of construction included the addition of a multi-purpose facility, new parking areas, the New Courtyard Building, and a multi-story residential building with below grade parking. The following is a summary of phases of work that is referenced in this report; o 2002 Improvements o Fitness Center (includes parking in various locations around the site) o Multi-purpose Building (Includes parking south of the main building) o Trailside Building (Residential building with below grade parking) o New Courtyard Building (current phase of development) – subject of this Stormwater Report The current phase of construction, for which this drainage report is written, includes the addition of a residential building known as the New Courtyard Building. Existing Conditions The Emerald Heights Redmond Campus site is located adjacent to mostly residential properties and is directly north of Redmond High School. The site address is 10901 176th Circle NE, Redmond, WA 98052. The parcel numbers are [PHONE REDACTED] and [PHONE REDACTED]. The existing site is 37.8 acres and consists of five separate drainage basins (See Figure 5 – Campus Basin). Work for the Courtyard Building project will be limited to Basin 3 and 5, with the majority of the work occurring in Basin 3. The New Courtyard Building project site is located at the southern edge of the parcel adjacent to 179th Avenue NE. Currently this area consists of a mix of covered and uncovered parking as well as landscaping and native vegetation. A nature trail exists south of the parking lot, which will be included in the final design of the Courtyard Building. Proposed Conditions The proposed building consists of one and two levels of below grade parking and two, 3-stories above grade structures composed of residential units. Site development associated with the project will include grading, paving, site access, on-site stormwater management, and utility construction. The purpose of this stormwater report is to provide an understanding of existing and proposed site conditions, as well as to outline the proposed drainage system. Figure 3.2 Flow Chart for determining Requirements for New Development of the City of Redmond 2017 Stormwater Technical Notebook indicates that this project is required to comply with the modified minimum requirements #1-9 of the Stormwater Technical Notebook. As such, flow control and water quality treatment were evaluated for the portion of this project in Basin 3 (hereby referred to as Threshold Discharge Area 1 or TDA Flow control and water quality treatment are not required for the portion of this project in Basin 5 (hereby referred to as Threshold Discharge Area 2 or TDA as this area of the project encompasses less than 5,000 square-feet. An area swap between TDA 1 and TDA 2 will be implemented. This will be discussed further in Section III and can also be seen in detail in Figure 4E – Proposed Conditions: Area Swap. Additionally, 300 linear feet of right-of-way improvements will be constructed. These improvements will involve the addition of landscaped areas adjacent to the roadway, replacing the sidewalk, and replacing the existing ---PAGE BREAK--- ditch with a series of storm pipes and catch basins. The right-of-way improvements are considered bypass area of TDA 1. This will be discussed further in Section III. 600 feet of right-of-way improvements were designed for this project. However, only the first section will be constructed concurrently with the construction of the Courtyard Building. The second section will be constructed with the Assisted Living facility that will also exist on the Emerald Heights campus. These right-of-way improvements can be seen in Figure 4F: Right-of- Way Conditons, located in Appendix A. II. DRAINAGE ANALYSIS Upstream Analysis The proposed site will match the existing grade at the project limits as to not alter flow paths or drainage basins. There are no significant upstream areas that drain onto the project site. The adjacent “Trailside” building to the west has an existing fire lane which runs north-south between the buildings is at a higher elevation and will require a new catch basin to collect runoff. This upstream area will be considered flow through area through Vault 1, see Proposed Drainage System. Analysis The proposed project will discharge to two different discharge points. The TDA 1 storm system discharges to an existing detention pond. Stormwater detained by the existing detention pond discharges to the existing 12- inch public storm main along NE 110th Way. The public storm system flows via a piped drainage system through residential neighborhoods to its outfall into Tylers Creek. TDA 2 sheet flows to a dispersion trench and then flows to the existing public system along 176th Ave NE. This leads to NE 108th Way and eventually discharges to Tylers Creek more than ¼ mile south of the TDA 1 discharge area. Tylers Creek drains to the south east and eventually drains to Bear Creek. Bear Creek drains to the south, eventually joining the Sammamish River near the 520 Bridge crossing south of downtown Redmond. Please see Figure 7 – Conveyance Map ---PAGE BREAK--- III. PROPOSED DRAINAGE SYSTEM Flow Control The proposed development requires flow control for TDA 1 based on criteria set forth in the 2017 City of Redmond Stormwater Technical Notebook; Flow control facilities are required for “projects in which the total effective impervious surfaces is 10,000 square feet or more in a threshold discharge area.” Flow control is not required for TDA 2, as there are less than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. Because of this, the TDA 2 area will not be draining to the vaults, but will instead be routed to a 21-foot dispersion trench in the southeast corner of the site. This dispersion trench disperses 1,420 square feet of impervious area. This section outlines the system used to achieve compliance with the 2014 minimum requirements as adapted by the City of Redmond. Flow control on-site in TDA 1 will be achieved through two concrete detention vaults located at the north edge of the building. The proposed vaults provide 24,200 cubic feet of live storage for runoff collected from the roof and surrounding landscape/hardscape. The graphic for the contributing area to the detention vaults and to the dispersion trench can be found in Figure 4A – Proposed Conditions. There are two bypass areas that will also be included in TDA 1. The right-of-way improvements and a small section at the northeast of the site will not be able to be routed to either detention vault. The right-of-way improvements have been included in the MGS Flood calculations for Vault 1 and the on-site bypass area has been included in the MGS Flood calculations for Vault 2. See Table 2 below for a breakdown of the land cover areas. An area swap will be taking place between Basin 3 and Basin 5 (TDA 1 and TDA 7,300 square-feet of area from the original Basin 5 will now be draining to Vault 2 in Basin 3 and 7,300 square-feet of area to the southwest of the site that originally drained to Basin 3 is now draining to the dispersion trench in Basin 5. This area swap can be seen in greater detail in Figure 4E - Proposed Conditions: Area Swap. TABLE 1: EXISTING LAND COVER Land Cover TDA 1 Existing TDA 2 Existing Totals Non-Pollution Generating Impervious Surface (NPGIS) 1,960 SF (0.045 acres) 0 1,960 SF (0.045 acres) Pollution Generating Impervious Surface (PGIS) 19,575 SF (0.449 acres) 0 19,575 SF (0.449 acres) Pervious Surfaces 19,960 SF (0.458 acres) 16,300 SF (0.374 acres) 36,260 SF (0.832 acres) Total Area 41,495 SF (0.951 acres) 16,300 SF (0.374 acres) 57,795 SF (1.327 acres) ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 2: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LAND COVER Land Cover Vault 1 Proposed Vault 2 Proposed TDA 2 TOTAL Proposed Non-Pollution Generating Impervious Surface (NPGIS) 15,320 SF (0.351 acres) 18,400 SF (0.422 acres) 1,635 SF (0.038 acres) 35,145 SF (0.807 acres) Pollution Generating Impervious Surface (PGIS) 1,710 SF (0.039 acres) 3,255 SF (0.075 acres) 0 4,965 SF (0.114 acres) Pervious Surfaces 1,965 SF (0.045 acres) 2,050 SF (0.047 acres) 13,460 SF (0.309 acres) 17,685 SF (0.406 acres) Total Area 18,995 SF (0.436 acres) 23,705 SF (0.544 acres) 15,095 SF (0.347 acres) 57,795 SF (1.327 acres) Vegetated Roof 1 1,325 SF (0.030 acres) 1,620 SF (0.037 acres) 0 2,945 SF (0.608 acres) Bypass 2 1,600 SF (0.037 acres) 1,465 SF (0.034 acres) 0 3,065 SF (0.071 acres) 1Vegetated roof area is included in the total “Non-Pollution Generating Impervious Surface (NPGIS)” area. 2Bypass area for Vault 1 encompassed the right-of-way improvements and is not included in the total areas. Bypass area for Vault 2 is included in the total NPGIS, PGIS, and Pervious areas. TABLE 3: EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS RIGHT-OF-WAY Land Cover Existing Proposed Non-Pollution Generating Impervious Surface (NPGIS) 1,520 SF (0.035 acres) 1,600 SF (0.037 acres) Pervious Surfaces 1,125 SF (0.026 acres) 1,045 SF (0.024 acres) Total Area 2,645 SF (0.061 acres) 2,645 SF (0.061 acres) The right-of-way areas do not trigger water quality, but the areas will be included for the flow control calculations of Vault 1 as mentioned previously. ---PAGE BREAK--- The proposed detention vault systems within TDA 1 shall match flow durations from forested conditions between 50% of the 2-year storm event through the full 50-year storm event, according to 2014 as adapted by the City of Redmond. This will include the bypass areas from the right-of-way and on-site. As mentioned previously, flow control is not required for TDA 2. The peak flows of pre-existing (forested) and proposed conditions, calculated in MGS Flood, are: TABLE 4: EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITION PEAK FLOWS VAULT 1 Pre-existing Runoff Vault 1 Post-development Runoff Vault 1 Net Reduction Tr (Years) Discharge (cfs) Tr (Years) Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs) 2-Year 0.009 2-Year 0.004 0.005 10-Year 0.020 10-Year 0.013 0.007 100-Year 0.036 100-Year 0.020 0.016 TABLE 5: EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITION PEAK FLOWS VAULT 2 Pre-existing Runoff Vault 1 Post-development Runoff Vault 1 Net Reduction Tr (Years) Discharge (cfs) Tr (Years) Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs) 2-Year 0.011 2-Year 0.005 0.006 10-Year 0.024 10-Year 0.016 0.008 100-Year 0.042 100-Year 0.024 0.018 The complete MGS Flood reports for each vault can be found in Appendix B: Engineering Calculations. Water Quality Treatment The proposed development does not require water quality based on criteria set forth in the 2012 City of Redmond Stormwater Technical Notebook; Water quality facilities are required for “projects in which the total of pollution generating impervious surface (PGIS) is 5,000 square feet or more in a threshold discharge area of the project.” The proposed development will decrease the amount of PGIS by 14,574 square feet. New PGIS area equals 4,965 SF, refer to Table 2. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. DISCUSSION OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS All Minimum Requirements are required for TDA 1, and only Minimum Requirements 1 and 2 are required for TDA 2. Please refer to Figures 8A and 8B – Flow Chart for Determining Minimum Requirements. MR Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans Stormwater plans and reports that address each of the applicable minimum requirements will be prepared by a licensed civil engineer in accordance with City Requirements. MR Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan A will be provided at a later date for both TDA 1 and TDA 2 and a CESCL will be appointed by the contractor. a. Element 1: Preserve Vegetation/Mark Clearing Limits i. Clearing Limits are noted on plans and will be implemented prior to any offsite impacts or damage due to construction. Existing vegetation will be protected and retained to the maximum extent feasible. b. Element 2: Establish Construction Access i. The Contractor, per the plans, shall implement necessary BMP measures to ensure sediment does not leave site onto streets or adjacent properties. c. Element 3: Control Flow Rates i. Project construction shall implement sediment ponds and/or baker tanks in accordance with City standards. d. Element 4: Install Sediment Controls i. Project construction shall implement sediment ponds and/or baker tanks in accordance with City standards. A will be provided at a later date and a CESCL will be appointed by the contractor. e. Element 5: Stabilize Soils i. Soils shall be stabilized through a series of BMPs for any period of more than 7 days in dry weather or 2 days in wet weather. f. Element 6: Protect Slopes i. All slopes will incorporate the applicable BMPs per the plans including straw mulch, plastic sheeting, and hydroseed. g. Element 7: Protect Drain Inlets i. Existing drains shall be protected where applicable through the project site. h. Element 8: Stabilize Channels and Outlets i. Channels and outlets shall be protected and stabilized where applicable through the project site. i. Element 9: Control Pollutants i. BMPs shall be implemented to prevent or treat contamination of stormwater runoff by pH modifying sources. In addition, all waste materials from the site will be removed in a manner that does not cause contamination of stormwater. j. Element 10: Control De-Watering i. De-watering is not expected to be implemented for the project due to low groundwater, however, some seepage into excavation is anticipated. Temporary pumps will be implemented as necessary during construction. k. Element 11: Maintain BMPs ---PAGE BREAK--- i. BMPs listed in the shall be maintained as needed through the project. As portions of the project get completed, portions of the established BMPs shall be adjusted to other areas of the project site until their completion. l. Element 12: Manage the Project i. Proposed erosion and sediment control measures will be implanted throughout construction as needed. MR Source Control of Pollution Stormwater will be prevented from coming in contact with pollutants through a series of BMPs listed within the A will be provided at a later date and a CESCL will be appointed by the contractor. MR Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls receiving waters will not be adversely affected by the construction or completion of this project. No new drainage patterns offsite are expected with this project. The project is conveying water to the same private storm system as the existing condition. MR On-Site Stormwater Management Projects shall employ On-site Stormwater Management BMPs to infiltrate, disperse, and retain stormwater runoff onsite to the maximum extent feasible without causing flooding or erosion impacts during construction. Finished conditions for the site will meet the requirements set forth in #6-9. See Section “VI Low Impact Development” for implementation of stormwater BMPs. MR Runoff Treatment On-site constructed water quality measures are not required for this project. The project proposes less than 5,000 square feet of PGIS within the project line therefore no water quality facilities are required. However, in order to reduce future maintenance for structures from the detention vault, 5,140 cubic feet of water quality storage is being proposed as a wet vault. Additional requirements apply to the project since it is in Well Protection Zone III; however no surface discharge of PGIS is proposed and no infiltration is proposed and therefore no additional water quality is required. MR Flow Control On-site constructed flow control measures are required for TDA 1 of this project. The project is proposing more than 10,000 square feet of effective impervious surfaces within TDA 1; therefore, two concrete detention vaults are proposed to meet flow control requirements. The project is proposing less than 10,000 square feet of effective impervious surfaces within TDA 2, so TDA 2 is not required to meet flow control requirements. MR Wetlands Protection Stormwater from this site does not discharge into a wetland and therefore wetlands protection is not required as per section 2.5.8 of the City of Redmond Clearing, Grading, and Stormwater Management Technical Notebook. MR Operation and Maintenance An operation and maintenance manual that is consistent with the provision in Volume V of the City’s Stormwater Technical Notebook shall be provided for all proposed stormwater facilities and BMPs. The Operation and Maintenance Manual will be provided in Appendix E in later editions of this report during the CCR process. ---PAGE BREAK--- V. TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Erosion control systems will be implemented throughout the construction process until the site is stabilized. All temporary erosion and sedimentation control requirements will comply with Chapter 15.24 of the Redmond Municipal Code and the Department of Ecology (DOE) Best Management Practices (BMPs). Best Management Practices are defined as physical, structural and/or managerial practices, that when used singly or in combination, prevent or reduce pollution of storm water runoff caused by construction activities. The Dry Season Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control plan for the proposed site has been designed to protect off-site properties as well as to prevent sediment-laden water from entering the public storm system. A “wet weather plan” will be developed prior to construction in the rainy season. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT Low impact development (LID) on the project site was assessed to meet the minimum requirements set forth in Sections 8.7.4 and 8.7.5 of the 2012 Stormwater Technical Notebook. This project is required to evaluate the feasibility of BMPs in List #2 of the 2014 but is not required to meet the LID Performance Standard (See Figure 8c Flow Chart for Determining LID MR #5 Requirements). The following LID BMP’s were considered in an effort to implement On-Site Stormwater Management and to meet LID Performance Standards: Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth: Post-Construction soil quality and depth will be implemented for the entire 17,688 square feet of the proposed landscaped areas within TDA 1 and TDA 2. Full Dispersion: The available native vegetation flow path length at a less than 3:1 slope is less than 100 feet; therefore full dispersion has been deemed infeasible for the project. Downspout Full Infiltration: Downspout full infiltration has been deemed infeasible for the project because the site does not meet minimum setback requirements, the site does not consist of outwash or loam soils, and the native soils do not meet minimum required infiltration rates. Bioretention Cells, Swales, and Planter Boxes: Bioretention has been deemed infeasible for on-site stormwater management because infiltration was deemed infeasible for the project: bioretention may be used with underdrains when the native soil infiltration rates are less than 0.30 inches/hour, however in order to receive credit for on-site stormwater management underdrains must not be used. Downspout Dispersion Systems: Downspout dispersion systems have been deemed infeasible because it does not meet minimum required vegetated flow path and minimum required setbacks from the property line and structures. Perforated Stub-Out Connections: Roof area routed through a downspout dispersion system could not be routed to the detention vault via gravity flow in all cases. Permeable Pavements: Permeable pavements have been deemed infeasible for on-site stormwater management because the native soil infiltration rate is less than 0.30 inches/hour; permeable pavements may be used with underdrains when the native soil infiltration rates are less than 0.30 inches/hour, however in order to receive credit for on-site stormwater management underdrains must not be used. Sheet Flow Dispersion: Sheet flow dispersion has been deemed infeasible because the on-site impervious surfaces either 1) do not have a vegetated surface directly adjacent or 2) are concentrated flows. Concentrated Flow Dispersion: Due to site constraints concentrated flows would not maintain the minimum vegetated flow of at least 50 feet between the discharge point and the property line. Tree Retention and Tree Planting: The project proposes to retain 7 trees on site and to plant 67 trees. Of the 74 total trees 3 existing evergreens, 5 new deciduous, and 9 new evergreen trees will be used for onsite stormwater management. The trees used for onsite stormwater management fulfill the requirements of size and proximity to ground level impervious surface. The new and retained trees mitigate a total of 850 square feet (0.02 acres) of impervious area. Vegetated Roofs: The project proposed 2,942 square-feet of vegetated roof with more than 8 inches of soil. Vegetated roof used for onsite stormwater management can be modelled as 50% impervious and 50% pervious area, as stated in the 2014 Due to site constraints and infeasibility criteria provided above the project is proposing to provide Onsite Stormwater Management and LID to the maximum extent feasible. ---PAGE BREAK--- The following are the responses to the site assessment minimum requirements as noted in Section 8.7.5: 1. A survey prepared by a registered land surveyor showing existing public and private development, including utility infrastructure, on and adjacent to the site, major and minor hydrologic features, including seeps, springs, closed depression areas, drainage swales, and 2 foot contours up to 10 percent slope and 5 foot contours for slopes above 10 percent. Spot elevations shall be at 25 foot intervals. A survey has been prepared by a registered land surveyor meeting the required criteria. 2. Location of all existing lot lines, lease areas and easements. A survey has been prepared by a registered land surveyor meeting the required criteria. 3. A soils report prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer or licensed engineering geologist. The report shall identify: a. Underlying soils on the site utilizing soil pits and soil grain analysis to assess infiltration capability on site. The frequency and distribution of test pits shall be adequate to direct placement of the roads and structures away from soils that can most effectively infiltrate stormwater; b. Percolation tests if appropriate or requested by the Stormwater Engineer; c. Topographic and geologic features that may act as natural stormwater storage or conveyance and underlying soils that provide opportunities for storage and partial infiltration; d. Depth to wet season high groundwater; e. Geologic hazard areas and associated buffer requirements as defined in RZC 21.64.060; f. Distance from site boundaries to any areas within 200 feet of the site identified as landslide hazard areas or having a slope of 40 percent or steeper with a vertical relief of 10 feet or more; [Note: the City may require the applicant to expand the 200 feet to encompass a larger area if there are concerns for geological hazards.] g. Identification of Wellhead Protection Zone(s); and h. For previously cleared or graded sites, analysis of topsoil according to the soil i. requirements in the City of Redmond Standard Specifications, Section 9.14.1. A geotechnical report has been prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer meeting the required criteria (see Appendix D, Geotechnical Report), which includes a letter describing the infiltration testing done on-site. As an added clarification to the submitted documents the project Geotechnical Engineer, Jeffrey Laub, has confirmed that it is his professional opinion that infiltration is infeasible onsite due to the presence of very dense glacially consolidated lodgment till soils. In addition to the limited infiltration on-site there is not any location to install an infiltration facility due to City of Redmond setback requirements; see attached LID Site Plan for addition information. Also, a topographic survey has been prepared by a licensed surveyor to meet the required criteria. 4. A survey of existing native vegetation cover and wildlife habitat by a qualified biologist identifying any forest areas on the site, species and condition of ground cover and shrub layer, and tree species, seral stage, and canopy cover. A survey has been prepared by a registered land surveyor meeting the required criteria. 5. A streams, wetland, and water body survey and classification report by a qualified biologist showing wetland and buffer boundaries consistent with the requirements of RZC 21.64.030 and Critical Areas Reporting Requirements (RZC Appendix A survey has been prepared by a registered land surveyor meeting the required criteria. 6. Flood hazard areas on or adjacent to the site. A survey has been prepared by a registered land surveyor. There are no flood hazards on or adjacent to the site. 7. A preliminary drainage report providing analysis of the existing site hydrologic conditions on the site and recommendations for type, location, and restrictions on LID BMPs. See Appendix B, Drainage Calculations, for a hydrologic analysis of the project site. 8. Other studies as deemed necessary by the Stormwater Engineer. No other documents have been identified as being necessary for LID assessment. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX A: FIGURES Figure 1 – Vicinity Map Figure 2 – Wellhead Protection Map Figure 3 – Existing Conditions Figure 4A – Proposed Conditions Figure 4B – Proposed Conditions – Vault 1 Figure 4C – Proposed Conditions – Vault 2 Figure 4D – Proposed Conditions – TDA 2 Figure 4E – Proposed Conditions – Area Swap Figure 4F – Right-of-Way Conditions Figure 5 – Campus Basin Figure 6A – Flow Chart for Determining LID MR #5 Requirements TDA 1 Figure 6B – Flow Chart for Determining LID MR #5 Requirements TDA 2 Figure 6C – Stormwater Notebook Figure 3.2 (Minimum Requirements Flow Chart) Figure 6D – Flow Chart for Determining LID MR #5 Requirements Right-of- Way Figure 7 – Conveyance Map Figure 8A – Flow Chart for Determining Minimum Requirements TDA 1 Figure 8B – Flow Chart for Determining Minimum Requirements TDA 2 Figure 8C – Flow Chart for Determining Minimum Requirements Right-of- Way ---PAGE BREAK--- EH: Independent Living Building C160134-01 Rice Fergus Miller 01-04-2018 BLH BSB Project Site 801 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 Figure 1 - Vicinity Map NTS Emerald Heights Redmond Campus ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 2 - Wellhead Protection Map Not to Scale EH: Independent Living Building C160134-01 Rice Fergus Miller 01-04-2018 BLH BSB Project Site ---PAGE BREAK--- 176TH CIRCLE NE 1"=40' TDA 2 Site Boundary Pervious TDA 1 NPGIS TDA 1 PGIS TDA 1 Pervious TDA 2 Legend 19,960 SF 1,960 SF 19,575 SF 16,300 SF Total Area = 57,795 SF (1.327 acres) TDA 1 TDA 1 is a portion of Basin 3, and TDA 2 is a portion of Basin 5. See Figure 5. Proposed Building Outlines Existing Conditions Figure 3 01-04-2018 C160134-01 Emerald Heights - Courtyard Independent Living ---PAGE BREAK--- 176TH CIRCLE NE Bypass area modeled with Vault 2 in MGS Flood Site Boundary Roof TDA 1 Green Roof TDA 1 Landscape TDA 1 NPGIS TDA 1 PGIS TDA 1 Landscape TDA 2 NPGIS TDA 2 PGIS Bypass NPGIS Bypass Landscape Bypass Legend 24,245 SF 2,945 SF 3,445 SF 6,260 SF 4,340 SF 13,460 SF 1,635 SF 625 SF 270 SF 570 SF Total Area = 57,795 SF See Figures 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E for breakdowns of Vault 1, Vault 2, Area Swap, and TDA 2 1" = 40' TDA 1 is a portion of Basin 3, and TDA 2 is a portion of Basin 5. See Figure 5. Vault 1 Vault 2 Dispersion Trench Overall Proposed Conditions Figure 4A 01-04-2018 C160134-01 Emerald Heights - Courtyard Independent Living ---PAGE BREAK--- 176TH CIRCLE NE Site Boundary Roof Green Roof Landscape NPGIS Existing PGIS to Vault 1 Existing NPGIS to Vault 1 Legend 11,870 SF 1,325 SF 1,965 SF 1,425 SF 1,710 SF 700 SF Total Area = 18,995 SF 1" = 40' Vault 1 TDA 1 is a portion of Basin 3 and drains to two vaults. These vaults discharge to the same location. A Portion of TDA 1 Proposed Conditions Vault 1 Figure 4B 01-04-2018 C160134-01 Emerald Heights - Courtyard Independent Living ---PAGE BREAK--- 176TH CIRCLE NE Bypass modeled with Vault 2 in MGS Flood Site Boundary Roof Green Roof Landscape NPGIS PGIS Landscape Bypass PGIS Bypass NPGIS Bypass Legend 12,375 SF 1,620 SF 1,480 SF 4,135 SF 2,630 SF 570 SF 625 SF 270 SF Total Area = 23,705 SF 1" = 40' Vault 2 TDA 1 is a portion of Basin 3 and drains to two vaults. These vaults discharge to the same location. Portion of TDA 1 Proposed Conditions Vault 2 Figure 4C 01-04-2018 C160134-01 Emerald Heights - Courtyard Independent Living ---PAGE BREAK--- 176TH CIRCLE NE Site Boundary Pervious NPGIS Legend 13,460 SF 1,635 SF Total Area = 15,095 SF 1" = 40' 21 LF Dispersion Trench (1,400 SF Contributing Impervious Area) TDA 2 is a portion of Basin 5 and drains to a dispersion trench. TDA 2 discharges to a different location than TDA 1. TDA 2 to Dispersion Trench Figure 4D 01-04-2018 C160134-01 Emerald Heights - Courtyard Independent Living ---PAGE BREAK--- 176TH CIRCLE NE TDA 2 Boundary Site Boundary Roof to TDA 1(Area Swap) Green Roof TDA 1(Area Swap) Landscape TDA 1 (Area Swap NPGIS TDA 1 (Area Swap) PGIS TDA 1 (Area Swap) Landscape TDA 2 (Area Swap) NPGIS TDA 2 (Area Swap) Landscape TDA 2 NPGIS TDA 2 Legend 7,410 SF 150 SF 460 SF 275 SF 365 SF 6,250 SF 1,050 SF 7,055 SF 590 SF Total Area Swapped = 7,300 SF 1" = 40' Proposed Conditions: Area Swap Figure 4E 01-03-2018 C160134-01 Emerald Heights - Courtyard Independent Living ---PAGE BREAK--- 51+00 52+00 53+00 51+50 52+50 53+50 Existing Proposed Pervious NPGIS Legend 1,045 SF 1,600 SF Total Area = 2,645 SF 1" = 30' Pervious NPGIS Legend 1,125 SF 1,520 SF Total Area = 2,645 SF Right-Of-Way Conditions Figure 4F 01-04-2018 C160134-01 Emerald Heights - Independent Living Courtyard Building ---PAGE BREAK--- LUNDEEN PORTER COUGHLIN Basin 2 3.2 ac Basin 3 6.7 ac Pond 3 Pond 1 Tributary Basin Pond 2 Basin 4 1.7 ac Basin 1 25.3 ac Flow Splitter Pond 1 Figure 5 - Campus Basin Conveyance Pipe Bypass flows to existing Pond 3 Proposed Courtyard Building Basin 5 0.9 ac Connection to existing private storm system ---PAGE BREAK--- No, the project triggered only MR #2 No, the project triggered MRs #1 - No, the project is outside the UGA. No, project developer chose List No, project developer chose List Flow Chart for Determining LID MR #5 Requirements Did the project developer choose to meet the LID Performance Standard? Does the project discharge to Flow Control Exempt Waters (per Minimum Requirement (MR) Yes Does the project trigger only MRs #1 - (Per Figure 3.2 or Figure 3.3 in Appendix 1 of the 2013-2018 WWA Phase II Permit & Phase I Permit.) No Yes Did the project developer choose to meet the LID Performance Standard? Yes REQUIRED: Meet the LID Performance Standard through the use of any BMP(s) in the 2012 or the LID Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound except for Rain Gardens (the use of Bioretention is acceptable). REQUIRED for Projects Triggering MR Apply BMP T5.13 Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth. NOT REQUIRED: Applying the BMPs in List #1 or List REQUIRED: For each surface, consider the BMPs in the order listed in List #1 for that type of surface. Use the first BMP that is considered feasible. NOT REQUIRED: Achievement of the LID Performance Standard. REQUIRED: For each surface, consider the BMPs in the order listed in List #2 for that type of surface. Use the first BMP that is considered feasible. NOT REQUIRED: Achievement of the LID Performance Standard. Is the project inside the UGA? Yes Is the project on a parcel of 5 acres or larger? REQUIRED: Meet the LID Performance Standard through the use of any BMP(s) in the 2012 or the LID Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound except for Rain Gardens (the use of Bioretention is acceptable). If the project can’t meet the LID Performance Standard, it must be redesigned to meet the LID performance standard or an exception / variance must be approved. REQUIRED: Apply BMP T5.13 Post- Construction Soil Quality and Depth. NOT REQUIRED: Applying the BMPs in List #1 or List No Yes Yes No additional requirements *Recommended by Ecology for projects triggering MR #1-5. REQUIRED: Implement the following BMPs where feasible: o BMP T5.13: Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth o BMP T5.10A, B, or C: Downspout Full Infiltration, Downspout Dispersion Systems, or Perforated Stub-out Connections o BMP T5.11 or T5.12: Concentrated Flow Dispersion or Sheet Flow Dispersion NOT REQUIRED: Achievement of the LID Performance Standard. Applying the other BMPs in List #1 or List Refer to your Municipal Stormwater Permit, 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, and/or your local jurisdiction for more information about these requirements and other requirements. Revised 3/11/13 (TDA 1) ---PAGE BREAK--- No, the project triggered only MR #2 No, the project triggered MRs #1 - No, the project is outside the UGA. No, project developer chose List No, project developer chose List Flow Chart for Determining LID MR #5 Requirements Did the project developer choose to meet the LID Performance Standard? Does the project discharge to Flow Control Exempt Waters (per Minimum Requirement (MR) Yes Does the project trigger only MRs #1 - (Per Figure 3.2 or Figure 3.3 in Appendix 1 of the 2013-2018 WWA Phase II Permit & Phase I Permit.) No Yes Did the project developer choose to meet the LID Performance Standard? Yes REQUIRED: Meet the LID Performance Standard through the use of any BMP(s) in the 2012 or the LID Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound except for Rain Gardens (the use of Bioretention is acceptable). REQUIRED for Projects Triggering MR Apply BMP T5.13 Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth. NOT REQUIRED: Applying the BMPs in List #1 or List REQUIRED: For each surface, consider the BMPs in the order listed in List #1 for that type of surface. Use the first BMP that is considered feasible. NOT REQUIRED: Achievement of the LID Performance Standard. REQUIRED: For each surface, consider the BMPs in the order listed in List #2 for that type of surface. Use the first BMP that is considered feasible. NOT REQUIRED: Achievement of the LID Performance Standard. Is the project inside the UGA? Yes Is the project on a parcel of 5 acres or larger? REQUIRED: Meet the LID Performance Standard through the use of any BMP(s) in the 2012 or the LID Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound except for Rain Gardens (the use of Bioretention is acceptable). If the project can’t meet the LID Performance Standard, it must be redesigned to meet the LID performance standard or an exception / variance must be approved. REQUIRED: Apply BMP T5.13 Post- Construction Soil Quality and Depth. NOT REQUIRED: Applying the BMPs in List #1 or List No Yes Yes No additional requirements *Recommended by Ecology for projects triggering MR #1-5. REQUIRED: Implement the following BMPs where feasible: o BMP T5.13: Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth o BMP T5.10A, B, or C: Downspout Full Infiltration, Downspout Dispersion Systems, or Perforated Stub-out Connections o BMP T5.11 or T5.12: Concentrated Flow Dispersion or Sheet Flow Dispersion NOT REQUIRED: Achievement of the LID Performance Standard. Applying the other BMPs in List #1 or List Refer to your Municipal Stormwater Permit, 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, and/or your local jurisdiction for more information about these requirements and other requirements. Revised 3/11/13 (TDA 2) ---PAGE BREAK--- List #1 & List For each surface, consider the BMP’s in the order listed for that type of surface. Use the first BMP that is considered feasible. BMPs List #1 (Project triggers Minimum Requirements #1-5) List #2 (Project triggers Minimum Requirements #1-9) Lawn & Landscaped Areas: • Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth in accordance with BMP T5.13 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the • Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth in accordance with BMP T5.13 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the Roofs: 1. Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the or Downspout Full Infiltration Systems in accordance with BMP T5.10A in Section 3.1.1 of Volume III of the 1. Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the or Downspout Full Infiltration Systems in accordance with BMP T5.10A in Section 3.1.1 of Volume III of the 2. Rain Gardens in accordance with the “Rain Garden Handbook for Western Washington,” or Bioretention in accordance with Chapter 7 of Volume V of the The rain garden or bioretention facility must have a minimum horizontal projected surface area below the overflow which is at least 5% of the area draining to it. 2. Bioretention (See Chapter 7 of Volume V of the facilities that have a minimum horizontally projected surface area below the overflow which is at least 5% of the of the total surface area draining to it 3. Downspout Dispersion Systems in accordance with BMP T5.10B in Section 3.1.2 of Volume III of the 3. Downspout Dispersion Systems in accordance with BMP T5.10B in Section 3.1.2 of Volume III of the 4. Perforated Stub-out Connections in accordance with BMP T5.10C in Section 3.1.3 of Volume III of the 4. Perforated Stub-out Connections in accordance with BMP T5.10C in Section 3.1.3 of Volume III of the Other Hard Surfaces: 1. Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the 1. Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the 2. Permeable pavement1 in accordance with BMP T5.15 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the or Rain Gardens in accordance with the “Rain Garden Handbook for Western Washington,” or Bioretention in accordance with Chapter 7 of Volume V of the The rain garden or bioretention facility must have a minimum horizontal projected surface area below the overflow which is at least 5% of the area draining to it. 2. Permeable pavement1 in accordance with BMP T5.15 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the 3. Sheet Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.12, or Concentrated Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.11 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the 3. Bioretention (See Chapter 7, Volume V of the facilities that have a minimum horizontally projected surface area below the overflow which is at least 5% of the of the total surface area draining to it. 4. Sheet Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.12, or Concentrated Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.11 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the 1 This is not a requirement to pave these surfaces. Where pavement is proposed, it must be permeable to the extent feasible unless full dispersion is employed. Refer to your Municipal Stormwater Permit, 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, and/or your local jurisdiction for more information about these requirements and other requirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- No, the project triggered only MR #2 No, the project triggered MRs #1 - No, the project is outside the UGA. No, project developer chose List No, project developer chose List Flow Chart for Determining LID MR #5 Requirements Did the project developer choose to meet the LID Performance Standard? Does the project discharge to Flow Control Exempt Waters (per Minimum Requirement (MR) Yes Does the project trigger only MRs #1 - (Per Figure 3.2 or Figure 3.3 in Appendix 1 of the 2013-2018 WWA Phase II Permit & Phase I Permit.) No Yes Did the project developer choose to meet the LID Performance Standard? Yes REQUIRED: Meet the LID Performance Standard through the use of any BMP(s) in the 2012 or the LID Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound except for Rain Gardens (the use of Bioretention is acceptable). REQUIRED for Projects Triggering MR Apply BMP T5.13 Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth. NOT REQUIRED: Applying the BMPs in List #1 or List REQUIRED: For each surface, consider the BMPs in the order listed in List #1 for that type of surface. Use the first BMP that is considered feasible. NOT REQUIRED: Achievement of the LID Performance Standard. REQUIRED: For each surface, consider the BMPs in the order listed in List #2 for that type of surface. Use the first BMP that is considered feasible. NOT REQUIRED: Achievement of the LID Performance Standard. Is the project inside the UGA? Yes Is the project on a parcel of 5 acres or larger? REQUIRED: Meet the LID Performance Standard through the use of any BMP(s) in the 2012 or the LID Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound except for Rain Gardens (the use of Bioretention is acceptable). If the project can’t meet the LID Performance Standard, it must be redesigned to meet the LID performance standard or an exception / variance must be approved. REQUIRED: Apply BMP T5.13 Post- Construction Soil Quality and Depth. NOT REQUIRED: Applying the BMPs in List #1 or List No Yes Yes No additional requirements *Recommended by Ecology for projects triggering MR #1-5. REQUIRED: Implement the following BMPs where feasible: o BMP T5.13: Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth o BMP T5.10A, B, or C: Downspout Full Infiltration, Downspout Dispersion Systems, or Perforated Stub-out Connections o BMP T5.11 or T5.12: Concentrated Flow Dispersion or Sheet Flow Dispersion NOT REQUIRED: Achievement of the LID Performance Standard. Applying the other BMPs in List #1 or List Refer to your Municipal Stormwater Permit, 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, and/or your local jurisdiction for more information about these requirements and other requirements. Revised 3/11/13 (Right-of-Way) ---PAGE BREAK--- 176th AVE NE NE 111th ST 176th CIR NE 178th PL NE NE 108th WAY NE 109th ST 183rd AVE NE NE 110th WAY 181st AVE NE NE 109th CT 179th CT NE 182nd AVE NE 177th CT NE NE 110th ST NE 112th WAY 180th PL NE 180th CT NE NE 108th CT 183rd PL NE 184th PL NE 178th CT NE 182nd PL NE NE 107th ST NE 107th CT NE 110th WAY NE 111th ST 177th CT NE Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Legend Pond Stream Centerline swPipe swVault Emerald Heights, Redmond, WA Data from City of Redmond ° 1 " = 200 ' Date: 2/23/2017 TDA 2 CONNECTION TO PUBLIC SYSTEM ROUTED THROUGH DETENTION VAULT DISCHARGE TO TYLERS CREEK DISCHARGE TO BEAR CREAK ROUTED IN PUBLIC PIPED SYSTEM ROUTED IN PUBLIC PIPED SYSTEM Figure 7: Conveyance Scale: 1'=200' TDA 1 CONNECTION TO PUBLIC SYSTEM ---PAGE BREAK--- D E P A R T M E N T O F ECOLOGY State of Washington Please see http://www.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html for copyright notice including permissions, limitation of liability, and disclaimer. Figure I-2.4.1 Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for New Development Revised June 2015 Does the site have 35% or more of existing impervious coverage? Does the project result in 5,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area? All Minimum Requirements apply to the new and replaced hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. Does the project convert 3 4 acres or more of vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas, or convert 2.5 acres or more of native vegetation to pasture? Minimum Requirements #1 through #5 apply to the new and replaced hard surfaces and the land disturbed. See Redevelopment Minimum Requirements and Flow Chart (Figure I-2.4.2). Does the project result in 2,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area? Does the project have land disturbing activities of 7,000 square feet or greater? Minimum Requirement #2 applies. Start Here Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes TDA 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- D E P A R T M E N T O F ECOLOGY State of Washington Please see http://www.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html for copyright notice including permissions, limitation of liability, and disclaimer. Figure I-2.4.2 Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for Redevelopment Revised June 2015 Does the project result in 2,000 square feet, or more, of new plus replaced hard surface area? OR Does the land disturbing activity total 7,000 square feet or greater? Minimum Requirement #2 applies. Minimum Requirements #1 through #5 apply to the new and replaced hard surfaces and the land disturbed. Does the project add 5,000 square feet or more of new hard surfaces? OR Convert 3 4 acres or more of vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas? OR Convert 2.5 acres or more of native vegetation to pasture? All Minimum Requirements apply to the new hard surfaces and the converted vegetation areas. Is this a road related project? Does the project add 5,000 square feet or more of new hard surfaces? Do the new hard surfaces add 50% or more to the existing hard surfaces within the project limits? Is the total of new plus replaced hard surfaces 5,000 square feet or more, AND does the value of the proposed improvements - including interior improvements - exceed 50% of the assessed value (or replacement value) of the existing site improvements? No additional requirements. All Minimum Requirements apply to the new and replaced hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. Yes No Next Question Yes No Next Question Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes TDA 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- D E P A R T M E N T O F ECOLOGY State of Washington Please see http://www.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html for copyright notice including permissions, limitation of liability, and disclaimer. Figure I-2.4.1 Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for New Development Revised June 2015 Does the site have 35% or more of existing impervious coverage? Does the project result in 5,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area? All Minimum Requirements apply to the new and replaced hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. Does the project convert 3 4 acres or more of vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas, or convert 2.5 acres or more of native vegetation to pasture? Minimum Requirements #1 through #5 apply to the new and replaced hard surfaces and the land disturbed. See Redevelopment Minimum Requirements and Flow Chart (Figure I-2.4.2). Does the project result in 2,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area? Does the project have land disturbing activities of 7,000 square feet or greater? Minimum Requirement #2 applies. Start Here Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes TDA 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- D E P A R T M E N T O F ECOLOGY State of Washington Please see http://www.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html for copyright notice including permissions, limitation of liability, and disclaimer. Figure I-2.4.1 Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for New Development Revised June 2015 Does the site have 35% or more of existing impervious coverage? Does the project result in 5,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area? All Minimum Requirements apply to the new and replaced hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. Does the project convert 3 4 acres or more of vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas, or convert 2.5 acres or more of native vegetation to pasture? Minimum Requirements #1 through #5 apply to the new and replaced hard surfaces and the land disturbed. See Redevelopment Minimum Requirements and Flow Chart (Figure I-2.4.2). Does the project result in 2,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area? Does the project have land disturbing activities of 7,000 square feet or greater? Minimum Requirement #2 applies. Start Here Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Right-of-Way ---PAGE BREAK--- D E P A R T M E N T O F ECOLOGY State of Washington Please see http://www.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html for copyright notice including permissions, limitation of liability, and disclaimer. Figure I-2.4.2 Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for Redevelopment Revised June 2015 Does the project result in 2,000 square feet, or more, of new plus replaced hard surface area? OR Does the land disturbing activity total 7,000 square feet or greater? Minimum Requirement #2 applies. Minimum Requirements #1 through #5 apply to the new and replaced hard surfaces and the land disturbed. Does the project add 5,000 square feet or more of new hard surfaces? OR Convert 3 4 acres or more of vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas? OR Convert 2.5 acres or more of native vegetation to pasture? All Minimum Requirements apply to the new hard surfaces and the converted vegetation areas. Is this a road related project? Does the project add 5,000 square feet or more of new hard surfaces? Do the new hard surfaces add 50% or more to the existing hard surfaces within the project limits? Is the total of new plus replaced hard surfaces 5,000 square feet or more, AND does the value of the proposed improvements - including interior improvements - exceed 50% of the assessed value (or replacement value) of the existing site improvements? No additional requirements. All Minimum Requirements apply to the new and replaced hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. Yes No Next Question Yes No Next Question Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes Right-of-Way ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B: ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS MGS Flood Report Vault 1 MGS Flood Report Vault 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- MGS FLOOD PROJECT REPORT Program Version: 4.43 Program License Number: 200610002 Project Simulation Performed on: 01/03/2018 11:05 AM Report Generation Date: 01/03/2018 11:06 AM Input File Name: Vault 1 20180103.fld Project Name: Emerald Heights Courtyard Vault 1 Analysis Title: Comments: PRECIPITATION INPUT Computational Time Step (Minutes): 15 Extended Precipitation Time Series Selected Climatic Region Number: 0 Full Period of Record Available used for Routing Precipitation Station : 96004005 Puget East 40 in_5min 10/01/1939-10/01/2097 Evaporation Station : 961040 Puget East 40 in MAP Evaporation Scale Factor : 0.750 HSPF Parameter Region Number: 1 HSPF Parameter Region Name : USGS Default Default HSPF Parameters Used (Not Modified by User) WATERSHED DEFINITION Predevelopment/Post Development Tributary Area Summary Predeveloped Post Developed Total Subbasin Area (acres) 0.472 0.472 Area of Links that Include Precip/Evap (acres) 0.000 0.000 Total (acres) 0.472 0.472 PREDEVELOPED Number of Subbasins: 2 Subbasin : Subbasin 1 (Acres) Till Forest 0.435 Subbasin Total 0.435 ---PAGE BREAK--- Subbasin : Subbasin 2 (Acres) Till Forest 0.037 Subbasin Total 0.037 POSTDEVELOPED Number of Subbasins: 2 Subbasin : Subbasin 1 (Acres) Till Pasture 0.060 Impervious 0.375 Subbasin Total 0.435 Subbasin : Subbasin 2 (Acres) Impervious 0.037 Subbasin Total 0.037 LINK DATA PREDEVELOPED Number of Links: 1 Link Name: New Copy Lnk1 Link Type: Copy Link: None LINK DATA POSTDEVELOPED Number of Links: 2 Link Name: New Structure Lnk1 Link Type: Structure Link Name: New Copy Lnk2 Prismatic Pond Option Used Pond Floor Elevation (ft) : 100.00 Riser Crest Elevation (ft) : 109.00 Max Pond Elevation (ft) : 109.50 Storage Depth (ft) : 9.00 Pond Bottom Length (ft) : 96.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- Pond Bottom Width (ft) : 17.0 Pond Side Slopes (ft/ft) : L1= 0.00 L2= 0.00 W1= 0.00 W2= 0.00 Bottom Area (sq-ft) : 1632. Area at Riser Crest El (sq-ft) : 1,632. (acres) : 0.037 Volume at Riser Crest (cu-ft) : 14,688. (ac-ft) : 0.337 Area at Max Elevation (sq-ft) : 1632. (acres) : 0.037 Vol at Max Elevation (cu-ft) : 15,830. (ac-ft) : 0.363 Massmann Infiltration Option Used Hydraulic Conductivity (in/hr) : 0.00 Depth to Water Table (ft) : 100.00 Bio-Fouling Potential : Low Maintenance : Average or Better Riser Geometry Riser Structure Type : Circular Riser Diameter (in) : 24.00 Common Length (ft) : 0.000 Riser Crest Elevation : 109.00 ft Hydraulic Structure Geometry Number of Devices: 3 ---Device Number 1 Device Type : Circular Orifice Control Elevation (ft) : 100.50 Diameter (in) : 0.13 Orientation : Horizontal Elbow : No ---Device Number 2 Device Type : Circular Orifice Control Elevation (ft) : 103.00 Diameter (in) : 0.25 Orientation : Horizontal Elbow : No ---Device Number 3 Device Type : Circular Orifice Control Elevation (ft) : 107.75 Diameter (in) : 0.75 Orientation : Horizontal Elbow : Yes Link Name: New Copy Lnk2 Link Type: Copy Link: None ---PAGE BREAK--- FREQUENCY AND DURATION PREDEVELOPED Number of Subbasins: 2 Number of Links: 1 Subbasin: Subbasin 2 Flood Frequency Data(cfs) (Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position) Tr (yrs) Flood Peak (cfs) 2-Year 7.884E-04 5-Year 1.285E-03 10-Year 1.731E-03 25-Year 2.195E-03 50-Year 2.802E-03 100-Year 3.036E-03 200-Year 4.725E-03 Link: New Copy Lnk1 Link Inflow Frequency Stats Flood Frequency Data(cfs) (Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position) Tr (yrs) Flood Peak (cfs) 2-Year 1.006E-02 5-Year 1.639E-02 10-Year 2.209E-02 25-Year 2.800E-02 50-Year 3.574E-02 100-Year 3.873E-02 200-Year 6.028E-02 Link: New Copy Lnk1 Link Outflow 1 Frequency Stats Flood Frequency Data(cfs) (Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position) Tr (yrs) Flood Peak (cfs) 2-Year 1.006E-02 5-Year 1.639E-02 10-Year 2.209E-02 25-Year 2.800E-02 50-Year 3.574E-02 100-Year 3.873E-02 200-Year 6.028E-02 POSTDEVELOPED Number of Subbasins: 2 Number of Links: 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Subbasin: Subbasin 1 Flood Frequency Data(cfs) (Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position) Tr (yrs) Flood Peak (cfs) 2-Year 0.142 5-Year 0.183 10-Year 0.213 25-Year 0.271 50-Year 0.333 100-Year 0.400 200-Year 0.411 Subbasin: Subbasin 2 Flood Frequency Data(cfs) (Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position) Tr (yrs) Flood Peak (cfs) 2-Year 1.379E-02 5-Year 1.791E-02 10-Year 2.015E-02 25-Year 2.536E-02 50-Year 3.228E-02 100-Year 3.733E-02 200-Year 3.869E-02 Link: New Structure Lnk1 Link Inflow Frequency Stats Flood Frequency Data(cfs) (Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position) Tr (yrs) Flood Peak (cfs) 2-Year 0.142 5-Year 0.183 10-Year 0.213 25-Year 0.271 50-Year 0.333 100-Year 0.400 200-Year 0.411 Link: New Structure Lnk1 Link WSEL Stats WSEL Frequency Data(ft) (Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position) Tr (yrs) WSEL Peak (ft) 1.05-Year 104.598 1.11-Year 104.866 1.25-Year 105.206 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2.00-Year 106.042 3.33-Year 106.681 5-Year 107.253 10-Year 108.079 25-Year 108.556 50-Year 108.645 100-Year 108.753 Link: New Copy Lnk2 Link Inflow Frequency Stats Flood Frequency Data(cfs) (Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position) Tr (yrs) Flood Peak (cfs) 2-Year 1.652E-02 5-Year 2.124E-02 10-Year 2.495E-02 25-Year 2.727E-02 50-Year 3.285E-02 100-Year 3.902E-02 200-Year 3.963E-02 Link: New Copy Lnk2 Link Outflow 1 Frequency Stats Flood Frequency Data(cfs) (Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position) Tr (yrs) Flood Peak (cfs) 2-Year 1.652E-02 5-Year 2.124E-02 10-Year 2.495E-02 25-Year 2.727E-02 50-Year 3.285E-02 100-Year 3.902E-02 200-Year 3.963E-02 ***********Groundwater Recharge Summary Recharge is computed as input to Perlnd Groundwater Plus Infiltration in Structures Total Predeveloped Recharge During Simulation Model Element Recharge Amount (ac-ft) Subbasin: Subbasin 1 75.007 Subbasin: Subbasin 2 6.380 Link: New Copy Lnk1 0.000 Total: 81.386 Total Post Developed Recharge During Simulation Model Element Recharge Amount (ac-ft) Subbasin: Subbasin 1 10.567 ---PAGE BREAK--- Subbasin: Subbasin 2 0.000 Link: New Structure Lnk1 0.000 Link: New Copy Lnk2 0.000 Total: 10.567 Total Predevelopment Recharge is Greater than Post Developed Average Recharge Per Year, (Number of Years= 158) Predeveloped: 0.515 ac-ft/year, Post Developed: 0.067 ac-ft/year Quality Facility Data PREDEVELOPED Number of Links: 1 Link: New Copy Lnk1 Infiltration/Filtration Inflow Volume (ac-ft): 42.96 Inflow Volume Including PPT-Evap (ac-ft): 42.96 Total Runoff Infiltrated (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00% Total Runoff Filtered (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00% Primary Outflow To System (ac-ft): 42.96 Secondary Outflow To System (ac-ft): 0.00 Percent Treated (Infiltrated+Filtered)/Total Volume: 0.00% POSTDEVELOPED Number of Links: 2 Link: New Structure Lnk1 Basic Wet Pond Volume (91% Exceedance): 1701. cu-ft Computed Large Wet Pond Volume, 1.5*Basic Volume: 2552. cu-ft Infiltration/Filtration Inflow Volume (ac-ft): 176.91 Inflow Volume Including PPT-Evap (ac-ft): 176.91 Total Runoff Infiltrated (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00% Total Runoff Filtered (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00% Primary Outflow To System (ac-ft): 176.76 Secondary Outflow To System (ac-ft): 0.00 Percent Treated (Infiltrated+Filtered)/Total Volume: 0.00% Link: New Copy Lnk2 Infiltration/Filtration Inflow Volume (ac-ft): 193.35 Inflow Volume Including PPT-Evap (ac-ft): 193.35 Total Runoff Infiltrated (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00% Total Runoff Filtered (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00% Primary Outflow To System (ac-ft): 193.35 ---PAGE BREAK--- Secondary Outflow To System (ac-ft): 0.00 Percent Treated (Infiltrated+Filtered)/Total Volume: 0.00% ***********Compliance Point Results Scenario Predeveloped Compliance Subbasin: Subbasin 1 Scenario Postdeveloped Compliance Link: New Structure Lnk1 Point of Compliance Flow Frequency Data Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position Predevelopment Runoff Postdevelopment Runoff Tr (Years) Discharge (cfs) Tr (Years) Discharge (cfs) 2-Year 9.270E-03 2-Year 3.890E-03 5-Year 1.511E-02 5-Year 4.523E-03 10-Year 2.036E-02 10-Year 1.306E-02 25-Year 2.581E-02 25-Year 1.791E-02 50-Year 3.294E-02 50-Year 1.863E-02 100-Year 3.569E-02 100-Year 1.947E-02 200-Year 5.556E-02 200-Year 1.990E-02 Record too Short to Compute Peak Discharge for These Recurrence Intervals Flow Duration Performance Excursion at Predeveloped 50%Q2 (Must be Less Than or Equal to -73.2% PASS Maximum Excursion from 50%Q2 to Q2 (Must be Less Than or Equal to -45.8% PASS Maximum Excursion from Q2 to Q50 (Must be less than 10%): -23.7% PASS Percent Excursion from Q2 to Q50 (Must be less than 50%): 0.0% PASS MEETS ALL FLOW DURATION DESIGN CRITERIA: PASS LID Duration Performance Excursion at Predeveloped 8%Q2 (Must be Less Than 344.0% FAIL Maximum Excursion from 8%Q2 to 50%Q2 (Must be Less Than 585.8% FAIL LID DURATION DESIGN CRITERIA: FAIL ---PAGE BREAK--- MGS FLOOD PROJECT REPORT Program Version: 4.43 Program License Number: 200610002 Project Simulation Performed on: 01/03/2018 3:44 PM Report Generation Date: 01/03/2018 3:44 PM Input File Name: Vault 2 20180102.fld Project Name: Courtyard Vault 2 Analysis Title: 20170918 Comments: PRECIPITATION INPUT Computational Time Step (Minutes): 15 Extended Precipitation Time Series Selected Climatic Region Number: 0 Full Period of Record Available used for Routing Precipitation Station : 96004005 Puget East 40 in_5min 10/01/1939-10/01/2097 Evaporation Station : 961040 Puget East 40 in MAP Evaporation Scale Factor : 0.750 HSPF Parameter Region Number: 1 HSPF Parameter Region Name : USGS Default Default HSPF Parameters Used (Not Modified by User) WATERSHED DEFINITION Predevelopment/Post Development Tributary Area Summary Predeveloped Post Developed Total Subbasin Area (acres) 0.544 0.544 Area of Links that Include Precip/Evap (acres) 0.000 0.000 Total (acres) 0.544 0.544 PREDEVELOPED Number of Subbasins: 2 Subbasin : Subbasin 1 (Acres) Till Forest 0.510 Subbasin Total 0.510 ---PAGE BREAK--- Subbasin : Subbasin 2 (Acres) Till Forest 0.034 Subbasin Total 0.034 POSTDEVELOPED Number of Subbasins: 2 Subbasin : Subbasin 1 (Acres) Till Pasture 0.053 Impervious 0.457 Subbasin Total 0.510 Subbasin : Subbasin 2 (Acres) Till Pasture 0.013 Impervious 0.021 Subbasin Total 0.034 LINK DATA PREDEVELOPED Number of Links: 1 Link Name: New Copy Lnk1 Link Type: Copy Link: None LINK DATA POSTDEVELOPED Number of Links: 2 Link Name: New Structure Lnk1 Link Type: Structure Link Name: New Copy Lnk2 Prismatic Pond Option Used Pond Floor Elevation (ft) : 100.00 Riser Crest Elevation (ft) : 106.00 Max Pond Elevation (ft) : 106.50 Storage Depth (ft) : 6.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- Pond Bottom Length (ft) : 72.0 Pond Bottom Width (ft) : 26.0 Pond Side Slopes (ft/ft) : L1= 0.00 L2= 0.00 W1= 0.00 W2= 0.00 Bottom Area (sq-ft) : 1872. Area at Riser Crest El (sq-ft) : 1,872. (acres) : 0.043 Volume at Riser Crest (cu-ft) : 11,232. (ac-ft) : 0.258 Area at Max Elevation (sq-ft) : 1872. (acres) : 0.043 Vol at Max Elevation (cu-ft) : 12,355. (ac-ft) : 0.284 Massmann Infiltration Option Used Hydraulic Conductivity (in/hr) : 0.00 Depth to Water Table (ft) : 100.00 Bio-Fouling Potential : Low Maintenance : Average or Better Riser Geometry Riser Structure Type : Circular Riser Diameter (in) : 18.00 Common Length (ft) : 0.000 Riser Crest Elevation : 106.00 ft Hydraulic Structure Geometry Number of Devices: 2 ---Device Number 1 Device Type : Circular Orifice Control Elevation (ft) : 100.00 Diameter (in) : 0.33 Orientation : Horizontal Elbow : No Device Number 2 Device Type : Vertical Rectangular Orifice Control Elevation (ft) : 103.60 Length (in) : 0.03 Height (in) : 28.80 Orientation : Vertical Elbow : No Link Name: New Copy Lnk2 Link Type: Copy Link: None FREQUENCY AND DURATION PREDEVELOPED Number of Subbasins: 2 Number of Links: 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Subbasin: Subbasin 2 Flood Frequency Data(cfs) (Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position) Tr (yrs) Flood Peak (cfs) 2-Year 7.245E-04 5-Year 1.181E-03 10-Year 1.591E-03 25-Year 2.017E-03 50-Year 2.574E-03 100-Year 2.790E-03 200-Year 4.342E-03 Link: New Copy Lnk1 Link Inflow Frequency Stats Flood Frequency Data(cfs) (Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position) Tr (yrs) Flood Peak (cfs) 2-Year 1.159E-02 5-Year 1.889E-02 10-Year 2.546E-02 25-Year 3.228E-02 50-Year 4.119E-02 100-Year 4.464E-02 200-Year 6.948E-02 Link: New Copy Lnk1 Link Outflow 1 Frequency Stats Flood Frequency Data(cfs) (Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position) Tr (yrs) Flood Peak (cfs) 2-Year 1.159E-02 5-Year 1.889E-02 10-Year 2.546E-02 25-Year 3.228E-02 50-Year 4.119E-02 100-Year 4.464E-02 200-Year 6.948E-02 POSTDEVELOPED Number of Subbasins: 2 Number of Links: 2 Subbasin: Subbasin 1 Flood Frequency Data(cfs) (Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position) Tr (yrs) Flood Peak (cfs) ---PAGE BREAK--- 2-Year 0.172 5-Year 0.222 10-Year 0.256 25-Year 0.325 50-Year 0.404 100-Year 0.480 200-Year 0.494 Subbasin: Subbasin 2 Flood Frequency Data(cfs) (Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position) Tr (yrs) Flood Peak (cfs) 2-Year 8.189E-03 5-Year 1.056E-02 10-Year 1.255E-02 25-Year 1.720E-02 50-Year 2.065E-02 100-Year 2.581E-02 200-Year 2.595E-02 Link: New Structure Lnk1 Link Inflow Frequency Stats Flood Frequency Data(cfs) (Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position) Tr (yrs) Flood Peak (cfs) 2-Year 0.172 5-Year 0.222 10-Year 0.256 25-Year 0.325 50-Year 0.404 100-Year 0.480 200-Year 0.494 Link: New Structure Lnk1 Link WSEL Stats WSEL Frequency Data(ft) (Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position) Tr (yrs) WSEL Peak (ft) 1.05-Year 101.923 1.11-Year 102.132 1.25-Year 102.466 2.00-Year 103.207 3.33-Year 103.815 5-Year 104.279 10-Year 104.969 25-Year 105.317 ---PAGE BREAK--- 50-Year 105.511 100-Year 105.587 Link: New Copy Lnk2 Link Inflow Frequency Stats Flood Frequency Data(cfs) (Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position) Tr (yrs) Flood Peak (cfs) 2-Year 1.175E-02 5-Year 1.628E-02 10-Year 2.060E-02 25-Year 2.508E-02 50-Year 2.729E-02 100-Year 2.809E-02 200-Year 2.828E-02 Link: New Copy Lnk2 Link Outflow 1 Frequency Stats Flood Frequency Data(cfs) (Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position) Tr (yrs) Flood Peak (cfs) 2-Year 1.175E-02 5-Year 1.628E-02 10-Year 2.060E-02 25-Year 2.508E-02 50-Year 2.729E-02 100-Year 2.809E-02 200-Year 2.828E-02 ***********Groundwater Recharge Summary Recharge is computed as input to Perlnd Groundwater Plus Infiltration in Structures Total Predeveloped Recharge During Simulation Model Element Recharge Amount (ac-ft) Subbasin: Subbasin 1 87.939 Subbasin: Subbasin 2 5.863 Link: New Copy Lnk1 0.000 Total: 93.801 Total Post Developed Recharge During Simulation Model Element Recharge Amount (ac-ft) Subbasin: Subbasin 1 9.334 Subbasin: Subbasin 2 2.290 Link: New Structure Lnk1 0.000 Link: New Copy Lnk2 0.000 Total: 11.624 ---PAGE BREAK--- Total Predevelopment Recharge is Greater than Post Developed Average Recharge Per Year, (Number of Years= 158) Predeveloped: 0.594 ac-ft/year, Post Developed: 0.074 ac-ft/year Quality Facility Data PREDEVELOPED Number of Links: 1 Link: New Copy Lnk1 Infiltration/Filtration Inflow Volume (ac-ft): 49.51 Inflow Volume Including PPT-Evap (ac-ft): 49.51 Total Runoff Infiltrated (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00% Total Runoff Filtered (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00% Primary Outflow To System (ac-ft): 49.51 Secondary Outflow To System (ac-ft): 0.00 Percent Treated (Infiltrated+Filtered)/Total Volume: 0.00% POSTDEVELOPED Number of Links: 2 Link: New Structure Lnk1 Basic Wet Pond Volume (91% Exceedance): 2058. cu-ft Computed Large Wet Pond Volume, 1.5*Basic Volume: 3087. cu-ft Infiltration/Filtration Inflow Volume (ac-ft): 212.65 Inflow Volume Including PPT-Evap (ac-ft): 212.65 Total Runoff Infiltrated (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00% Total Runoff Filtered (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00% Primary Outflow To System (ac-ft): 212.60 Secondary Outflow To System (ac-ft): 0.00 Percent Treated (Infiltrated+Filtered)/Total Volume: 0.00% Link: New Copy Lnk2 Infiltration/Filtration Inflow Volume (ac-ft): 223.91 Inflow Volume Including PPT-Evap (ac-ft): 223.91 Total Runoff Infiltrated (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00% Total Runoff Filtered (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00% Primary Outflow To System (ac-ft): 223.91 Secondary Outflow To System (ac-ft): 0.00 Percent Treated (Infiltrated+Filtered)/Total Volume: 0.00% ***********Compliance Point Results ---PAGE BREAK--- Scenario Predeveloped Compliance Subbasin: Subbasin 1 Scenario Postdeveloped Compliance Link: New Structure Lnk1 Point of Compliance Flow Frequency Data Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position Predevelopment Runoff Postdevelopment Runoff Tr (Years) Discharge (cfs) Tr (Years) Discharge (cfs) 2-Year 1.087E-02 2-Year 5.110E-03 5-Year 1.771E-02 5-Year 9.260E-03 10-Year 2.387E-02 10-Year 1.597E-02 25-Year 3.026E-02 25-Year 2.006E-02 50-Year 3.862E-02 50-Year 2.254E-02 100-Year 4.185E-02 100-Year 2.354E-02 200-Year 6.513E-02 200-Year 2.484E-02 Record too Short to Compute Peak Discharge for These Recurrence Intervals Flow Duration Performance Excursion at Predeveloped 50%Q2 (Must be Less Than or Equal to -26.4% PASS Maximum Excursion from 50%Q2 to Q2 (Must be Less Than or Equal to -26.4% PASS Maximum Excursion from Q2 to Q50 (Must be less than 10%): -27.4% PASS Percent Excursion from Q2 to Q50 (Must be less than 50%): 0.0% PASS MEETS ALL FLOW DURATION DESIGN CRITERIA: PASS LID Duration Performance Excursion at Predeveloped 8%Q2 (Must be Less Than 432.6% FAIL Maximum Excursion from 8%Q2 to 50%Q2 (Must be Less Than 655.9% FAIL LID DURATION DESIGN CRITERIA: FAIL ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C: CONVEYANCE ANALYSIS Included in a later version of this report ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX D: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Included in a later version of this report ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX E: OPERATIONS AND MAINTANENCE MANUAL Included in a later version of this report ---PAGE BREAK--- 6544 NE 61st Street, Seattle, WA 98115 Phone: (206) 523-3939 Fax: (206) 523-4949 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Project: Emerald Heights Subject: Study Area Traffic Confirmation Analysis Date: July 13, 2017 Author: Michelle M. Brown, Senior Transportation Engineer Marni C. Heffron, P.E., P.T.O.E. The original Traffic Impact Analysis report for the entire Emerald Heights Master Plan was completed in 2010.1 As planned, Emerald Heights continues to complete its expansion. However, there has been some concern by the neighbors that traffic conditions have drastically changed in the area, and that the assumptions used for the original Traffic Impact Analysis are no longer valid. Therefore, an evalu- ation was completed to determine if the assumptions used in the original analysis are still valid. For the original analysis, traffic counts were performed at the site access driveways and along 176th Avenue NE (Abbey Road) in December 2009 and in March 2010. This memorandum compares the original traffic counts to new counts conducted in June 2017. In addition, operations analysis results and trip generation assumptions are also compared. 1. Traffic Counts Multi-day traffic counts conducted in 2009 determined that the site generated an average of 104 PM peak hour trips (44 in, 60 out through the Main Entrance Driveway on 176th Avenue NE as this was the only entrance used at that time). The traffic count at this same location in March 2010 showed that the site generated 108 PM peak hour trips (52 in, 56 out), which confirmed the con- sistency in the traffic generated by the Emerald Heights community and the accuracy of the trip generation estimate. New driveway counts were performed in June 2017, and determined that the site now generates 130 PM peak hour trips (60 in, 70 out using both the Main Driveway and the exit-only staff driveway). These counts are a bit higher than expected, likely due to construction trips and other master plan- ning project related traffic, not traffic specifically related to the Emerald Heights land use. Traffic volumes along 176th Avenue NE were also counted during the PM peak hour. In 2010 there were 82 vehicles (excluding the Emerald Heights site trips) passing the Main Entrance Driveway. The 2017 traffic count showed 92 vehicles (excluding the Emerald Heights site trips) passing the Main Entrance Driveway during the same time. The original report assumed a 2% annual increase in background traffic growth. In over seven years, the background traffic volumes during the peak of the intersection along 176th Avenue NE traffic have increased less than assumed in the original study. Therefore, the overall traffic forecast assumptions in the original report remain conservative and valid. The 2010 and 2017 traffic count sheets are attached. 1 Emerald Heights – Redmond, WA – Traffic Impact Analysis, June 4, 2010, Heffron Transportation, Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- Emerald Heights Study Area Traffic Confirmation Analysis - 2 - July 13, 2017 2. Trip Generation Rates The trip generation rate used for the 2010 Traffic Impact Analysis was 0.26 trips per unit. This rate was derived from the 2009 traffic counts at the Emerald Heights site. This rate is higher than the average rates of similar land uses (Land Uses: 251, 252, 253, 254, and 255) in both the 8th and 9th Editions of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. To provide a conservative estimate, a trip generation rate that was based on the June 2017 traffic counts was applied to the remaining planned projects on the site (new Assisted Living Building, new Courtyard Independent Living Building, and the Corwin Center renovation). Using a rate of 0.29 trips per unit, these projects are estimated to generate 26 additional PM peak hour trips. This would bring the total site trip generation to 153 PM peak hour trips. As a comparison, the original Traffic Impact Analysis included an assumption that the full site buildout would generate about 170 PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the assumptions in the original report are still considered conservative and valid. 3. Traffic Operations The original Traffic Impact Analysis concluded that the Emerald Heights development would not significantly change the operating levels at any of the study area intersections, including the site access driveways, which would continue to operate at very good levels at full buildout (LOS A or B, on a grading scale from A to F, with LOS A as excellent and LOS F as failing). Based on the new traffic counts and estimated trip generation at full buildout, the original assumptions and forecasts are still valid, and the driveway is still expected to operate at LOS B or better. Therefore no addi- tional traffic analysis is needed for the master planning efforts at the Emerald Heights site. 4. Parking When the original Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared, the Emerald Heights community had 503 parking spaces for 401 total residents units, employees, and visitors. The original expansion plan would have provided another 189 spaces, with a total 850 spaces (482 required). This was to accommodate a total of 608 total units. The current expansion plan is smaller than originally proposes with 532 units, and 592 parking spaces. The proposed parking supply would still exceed the City’s requirement of 540 spaces, and would include van accessible spaces and areas for electric vehicle parking. There continue to be unused parking spaces on the current campus, and no parking overflow is expected for day to day operations. 5. Traffic Impact Fees The City of Redmond imposes traffic impact fees for new developments that would add peak hour trips to the transportation network. As stated in the Traffic Impact Analysis and Redmond Municipal Code 3.10; the impact fees should be based on the number of additional residential units constructed. As the new additions to the site occur, traffic impact fees are being paid based on the fees at the time, which remains valid and consistent with the City’s requirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- Emerald Heights Study Area Traffic Confirmation Analysis - 3 - July 13, 2017 6. Conclusion The original Traffic Impact Analysis conducted for the Emerald Heights Master Plan in June 2010 concluded that the Emerald Heights development would not significantly change the operating levels at any of the study area intersections, including the site access driveways with the proposed additions and changes to the site. With each phase of the master plan development, separate transportation evaluations have been conducted to ensure the current proposal is within the parameters evaluated within the original traffic study. Each of the phases so far are well within those parameters and have not triggered any additional transportation analysis. This additional evaluation confirms that the background traffic growth and the estimated traffic fore- casts for Emerald Heights were conservative in the original study and remain valid. The approach to paying traffic impact fees also remains consistent with the City’s current standards. No additional traffic analysis should be required to accommodate the remaining Emerald Heights master planning expansion efforts beyond what has already been completed. Attachment – 2010 and 2017 Traffic Counts at Emerald Heights Site Access Driveways. MMB/mch Emerald Heights - Study Area Traffic Confirmation Memo.Docx ---PAGE BREAK--- Peak Hour Summary 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM Wednesday, March 24, 2010 67 54 17 50 É Æ 0 52 0 22 È 0 56 0 34 Ê Ç Å 35 32 84 67 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 56 EB 0.70 0.0% 0 WB 0.00 0.0% 0 0 179th Ave NE & 176th Circle 179th Ave NE NB 0.73 0.0% 67 SB 0.67 7.5% Intersection 0.78 2.6% 67 190 176th Circle Approach HV% PHF Volume 179th Ave NE 0 0 0 Peds Peds 3 Mark Skaggs (206) 251-0300 1 Peds Peds 0 ---PAGE BREAK--- Total Vehicle Summary 179th Ave NE & 176th Circle 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 15-Minute Interval Summary 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Interval Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Pedestrians Start 179th Ave NE 179th Ave NE 176th Circle 176th Circle Interval Crosswalk Time L T HV T R HV L R HV Total North South East West 4:00 PM 12 8 0 17 8 2 7 9 0 61 0 0 0 1 4:15 PM 16 7 0 10 4 0 6 8 0 51 0 0 0 1 4:30 PM 2 9 0 6 3 1 7 13 0 40 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 5 8 0 17 2 2 2 4 0 38 0 1 0 1 5:00 PM 5 10 0 8 1 1 1 2 0 27 0 0 0 1 5:15 PM 2 8 1 11 1 1 1 3 0 26 1 1 0 0 5:30 PM 2 9 1 17 0 1 0 6 0 34 0 0 0 1 5:45 PM 4 10 0 4 2 2 5 4 0 29 0 0 0 3 Total Survey 48 69 2 90 21 10 29 49 0 306 1 2 0 8 Peak Hour Summary 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Pedestrians 179th Ave NE 179th Ave NE 176th Circle 176th Circle Total Crosswalk In Out Total HV In Out Total HV In Out Total HV In Out Total North South East West Volume 67 84 151 0 67 54 121 5 56 52 108 0 0 0 0 190 0 1 0 3 %HV 0.0% 7.5% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% PHF 0.73 0.67 0.70 0.00 0.78 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound 179th Ave NE 179th Ave NE 176th Circle 176th Circle Total L T T R L R Volume 35 32 50 17 22 34 190 PHF 0.55 0.89 0.74 0.53 0.79 0.65 0.78 Rolling Hour Summary 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Interval Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Pedestrians Start 179th Ave NE 179th Ave NE 176th Circle 176th Circle Interval Crosswalk Time L T HV T R HV L R HV Total North South East West 4:00 PM 35 32 0 50 17 5 22 34 0 190 0 1 0 3 4:15 PM 28 34 0 41 10 4 16 27 0 156 0 1 0 3 4:30 PM 14 35 1 42 7 5 11 22 0 131 1 2 0 2 4:45 PM 14 35 2 53 4 5 4 15 0 125 1 2 0 3 5:00 PM 13 37 2 40 4 5 7 15 0 116 1 1 0 5 Wednesday, March 24, 2010 By Movement By Approach Total Total Total Total 67 0.73 0.00 0 0.70 56 0.67 67 Mark Skaggs (206) 251-0300 22 34 35 50 17 0 1 3 0 32 67 84 In Out 54 67 Out In 56 In 52 Out Out 0 In 0 0.73 PHF 0.0% HV 0.00 PHF 0.0% HV 0.70 PHF 0.0% HV 0.67 PHF 7.5% HV Peak Hour Summary 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM ---PAGE BREAK--- www.idaxdata.com 02 to to Three-Hour Count Summaries Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page. Total 1 3 2 1 7 WB - - NB 0.0% 0.86 Peak Hour: 3:45 PM 4:45 PM HV PHF EB 1.8% 0.72 Date: Thu, Jun 22, 2017 Peak Hour Count Period: 3:00 PM 6:00 PM SB 7.6% 0.87 TOTAL 3.0% 0.86 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 4 1 Interval Start MAIN DWY 0 176TH AVE NE 176TH AVE NE 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 0 0 0 0 9 6 UT LT TH 0 RT 3:45 PM 0 2 0 7 0 TH RT UT LT TH RT 10 3 47 0 LT 0 11 10 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 4 0 9 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 5 56 0 0 0 0 13 10 4:15 PM 0 1 0 13 0 15 4 58 200 0 35 0 0 0 50 16 0 0 0 0 0 44 Peak Hour 200 0 12 0 43 0 11 9 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 5 0 14 0 East West North South 3:45 PM 0 0 0 2 2 Total EB WB NB SB Total Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB 1 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 4:30 PM 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 Peak Hour 1 0 0 5 6 0 1 1 2 0 5 0 N 176TH AVE NE MAIN DWY 176TH AVE NE 176TH AVE NE MAIN DWY 200 TEV: 0.86 PHF: 16 50 66 47 0 35 44 79 93 0 43 12 55 60 0 Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [EMAIL REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- www.idaxdata.com 02 Three-Hour Count Summaries Note: Three-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 1 0 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 7 2 0 21 7 TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start MAIN DWY 0 176TH AVE NE 176TH AVE NE 15-min Total UT LT TH RT 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 14 4 44 0 3:15 PM 0 0 0 12 0 0 10 8 0 0 3:00 PM 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 7 55 0 3:45 PM 0 2 0 7 0 0 6 13 0 0 48 0 3:30 PM 0 4 0 17 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 15 3 39 186 4:00 PM 0 4 0 9 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 10 3 47 189 4:15 PM 0 1 0 13 0 0 11 10 0 0 0 15 4 58 200 4:45 PM 0 1 0 4 0 0 11 9 0 0 56 197 4:30 PM 0 5 0 14 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 14 5 34 195 5:00 PM 0 1 0 11 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 15 1 45 193 5:15 PM 0 2 0 5 0 2 1 14 0 0 0 19 1 46 169 5:45 PM 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 19 0 0 44 181 5:30 PM 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 18 2 38 173 17 0 0 0 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 165 39 554 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 0 12 0 0 2 76 143 0 0 16 200 0 Peak Hour 44 35 0 0 0 50 43 0 Count Total 0 0 0 3:15 PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 West North South 3:00 PM 0 0 0 3 3 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 3:45 PM 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 4:30 PM 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 Peak Hr 1 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 3 1 4 0 17 Count Total 2 0 1 11 14 0 0 1 1 2 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 22 0 107 0 0 0 Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [EMAIL REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- www.idaxdata.com 01 to to Three-Hour Count Summaries Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page. Total 0 0 0 2 2 SB - - TOTAL 3.3% 0.92 Interval Start NE 111TH ST NE 111TH ST STAFF EXIT DWY 0 15-min Total Rolling One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound WB 0.0% 0.59 NB 0.0% 0.54 Peak Hour: 3:30 PM 4:30 PM HV PHF EB 6.6% 0.66 Date: Thu, Jun 22, 2017 Peak Hour Count Period: 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 30 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT 0 0 10 0 1 0 18 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 3:45 PM 0 0 17 0 0 0 6 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 3:30 PM 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 3 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 0 33 121 4:00 PM 0 0 11 0 0 0 17 0 0 2 0 0 61 0 1 0 44 0 0 13 0 2 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South 4:15 PM 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3:45 PM 2 Peak Hour Peak Hour 4 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 N STAFF EXIT DWY NE 111TH ST NE 111TH ST STAFF EXIT DWY NE 111TH ST 121 TEV: 0.92 PHF: 44 0 45 64 1 2 13 15 0 0 0 61 61 57 0 Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [EMAIL REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- www.idaxdata.com 01 Three-Hour Count Summaries Note: Three-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 5 0 0 10 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 Peak Hr 4 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 Count Total 9 0 0 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5:30 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 EB WB NB SB Total East 3:45 PM 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 0 2 3:15 PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 West North South 3:00 PM 2 0 0 0 0 61 0 0 30 0 6 0 0 121 0 13 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 44 0 0 Count Total 0 0 196 0 1 0 119 0 0 0 352 0 24 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 40 120 5:45 PM 0 0 16 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 33 111 5:30 PM 0 0 21 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 2 0 0 0 24 111 5:15 PM 0 0 19 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 23 117 5:00 PM 0 0 13 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 3 0 0 0 31 120 4:45 PM 0 0 13 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 33 121 4:30 PM 0 0 15 0 0 0 12 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 5 0 0 0 30 120 4:15 PM 0 0 23 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 26 114 4:00 PM 0 0 11 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 3 0 0 0 32 0 3:45 PM 0 0 17 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 32 0 3:30 PM 0 0 10 0 1 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 24 0 3:15 PM 0 0 24 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 TH RT 3:00 PM 0 0 14 0 0 0 7 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start NE 111TH ST NE 111TH ST STAFF EXIT DWY 0 15-min Total UT LT TH RT Peak Hour Mark Skaggs: (425) 250-0777 [EMAIL REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- 11415 NE 128th St., Suite 110, Kirkland, WA 98034 I Phone: [PHONE REDACTED] I Fax: [PHONE REDACTED] americanforestmanagement.com Emerald Heights - IL Redmond, WA Arborist Report June 26th, 2017 Revised January 3nd, 2018 ---PAGE BREAK--- January 3rd, 2018 Emerald Heights IL Building - Redmond Page 1 AMERICAN FOREST MANAGEMENT, INC. Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. Description 2 3. Methodology 2 4. Observations 3 5. Discussion 4 6. Tree Protection Measures 5 7. Tree Retention 6 8. Tree Replacement 6 Appendix Site/Tree Photos – pages 7 - 9 Tree Summary Table - attached Tree Condition Map - attached ---PAGE BREAK--- January 3rd, 2018 Emerald Heights IL Building - Redmond Page 2 AMERICAN FOREST MANAGEMENT, INC. 1. Introduction American Forest Management was contacted by Moghan Lyon with Lyon Landscape Architects and was asked to compile an ‘Arborist Report’ for a new independent living building located at Emerald Heights in Redmond Our assignment is to prepare a written report on the current condition of significant trees on the subject parcels and any right-of-way or neighboring trees that may be impacted by future re-development of the property. Date of Field Examination: June 6th and 13th, 2017 2. Description The topography of the subject property is flat. Only trees that will be removed or potentially impacted by construction were included in this report. 126 significant trees (trees with a diameter at breast height, 4 ½’ above ground > were included in this report. Three of the trees in the subject area are landmark trees. 11 of these trees are in poor condition and are non-viable. All of the significant trees in the subject area have been identified in the field with a numbered aluminum tag attached to the lower trunk. Tree tag numbers correspond with tree numbers on the attached tree summary table and copy of the site plan. No trees on neighboring properties with drip-lines extending on to the subject area were identified. The subject area borders 176th Ave NE. 3. Methodology Each tree in this report was visited. Tree diameters were measured by tape. The tree heights were measured using a Spiegel Relaskop. Each tree was visually examined for defects and vigor. The tree assessment procedure involves the examination of many factors: • The crown of the tree is examined for current vigor. This is comprised of inspecting the crown (foliage, buds and branches) for color, density, form, and annual shoot growth, limb dieback and disease. The percentage of live crown is estimated for coniferous species only and scored appropriately. • The bole or main stem of the tree is inspected for decay, which includes cavities, wounds, fruiting bodies of decay (conks or mushrooms), seams, insects, bleeding, callus development, broken or dead tops, structural defects and unnatural leans. Structural defects include crooks, forks with V-shaped crotches, multiple attachments, and excessive sweep. • The root collar and roots are inspected for the presence of decay, insects and/or damage, as well as if they have been injured, undermined or exposed, or original grade has been altered. ---PAGE BREAK--- January 3rd, 2018 Emerald Heights IL Building - Redmond Page 3 AMERICAN FOREST MANAGEMENT, INC. Based on these factors a determination of condition is made. The four condition categories are described below based on the species traits assessed: Excellent – free of structural defects, no disease or pest problems, no root issues, excellent structure/form with uniform crown or canopy, foliage of normal color and density, above average vigor, it will be wind firm if isolated, suitable for its location Good – free of significant structural defects, no disease concerns, minor pest issues, no significant root issues, good structure/form with uniform crown or canopy, foliage of normal color and density, average or normal vigor, will be wind firm if isolated or left as part of a grouping or grove of trees, suitable for its location Fair – minor structural defects not expected to contribute to a failure in near future, no disease concerns, moderate pest issues, no significant root issues, asymmetric or unbalanced crown or canopy, average or normal vigor, foliage of normal color, moderate foliage density, will be wind firm if left as part of a grouping or grove of trees, cannot be isolated, suitable for its location Poor – major structural defects expected to fail in near future, disease or significant pest concerns, decline due to old age, significant root issues, asymmetric or unbalanced crown or canopy, sparse or abnormally small foliage, poor vigor, not suitable for its location A ‘viable’ tree is a significant tree that a qualified professional has determined to be in good health, with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is wind firm if isolated or remains as part of a grove, and is a species that is suitable for its location. Trees considered ‘non-viable’ are trees that are in poor condition due to disease, age related decline, have significant decay issues and/or cumulative structural defects, which exacerbate failure potential. The attached tree map indicates the ‘condition’ of the subject trees found at the site. 4. Observations General species observations are below. For information on specific trees, see the attached tree table. Douglas fir Douglas fir trees range in age and condition. The largest Douglas fir in the study area has a DBH of 32". The most common defects were structural. Leaning trunks and forked tops were observed in multiple trees. The Douglas fir trees range from fair to good condition. All are viable. Western red cedar The Western red cedars range in age and viability. Dead tops and visible trunk decay were common. There are dead Western red cedar trees on the property. Co-dominant stems with included bark at the point of attachment were observed. The Western red cedar trees range in condition from poor to good. ---PAGE BREAK--- January 3rd, 2018 Emerald Heights IL Building - Redmond Page 4 AMERICAN FOREST MANAGEMENT, INC. Big leaf maple Big leaf maple trees are dispersed throughout the subject area. Many have forked trunks and widespread crowns both attributes are typical of the species. Some have large dead stems in the crown. The big leaf maple trees in the subject area range in condition from fair to good and are all viable. Red alder The red alder trees in the subject area are generally semi-mature and in incipient stages of decline. Common defects include leaf dieback and lower trunk decay. Many have leaning trunks and poor trunk taper. The red alder trees in the subject area range from fair to poor condition. Viability varies and none of the red alders are considered high value for retention. River birch The river birch trees are located near the parking structure and vary in viability. Thin crowns and dead tops were commonly observed. The birch trees range in condition from fair to poor. Bitter cherry The bitter cherry trees in the subject area are generally semi-mature to mature and in decline. Leaf dieback and poor taper were issues observed in many trees. The bitter cherry trees in the subject area range from fair to poor condition. 5. Discussion The extent of drip-lines (farthest reaching branches) for the subject trees can be found on the tree summary table at the back of this report. These have also been delineated on the final tree retention/protection plan. The Limits of Disturbance (LOD) measurements can also be found on the tree summary table and are shown on the final tree retention/protection plan. The LOD measurements are based on species, age, condition, drip-line, prior improvements, proposed impacts and the anticipated cumulative impacts to the entire root zone. No high-risk tree conditions were observed at the site. No conditions were identified that warrant any remedial actions to reduce risks at this time. All subject trees would be rated as low to moderate risks under an ISA Level II Basic Assessment. The highest priority trees for retention are the native big leaf maple, western red cedar and Douglas fir trees on the south side of the property. These trees are healthy and typically far from the proposed building. Douglas fir, Western red cedar and big leaf maple are a long lived, native species. If adequately protected these trees could have productive lifespans that positively benefit the site for another hundred years or more. Cascara, bitter cherry and red alder are all native hardwood species. All of these species are short lived with average productive lifespans of less than 100 years. These species should be the lowest priority for retention. ---PAGE BREAK--- January 3rd, 2018 Emerald Heights IL Building - Redmond Page 5 AMERICAN FOREST MANAGEMENT, INC. The Western red cedar trees have the most concerning issues. There are multiple dead and declining Western red cedar trees in the subject area. Water stress, caused by the unusually hot and dry summers is suspected to be one of the causes. Western red cedars need sufficient water. The Western red cedars that have died were young and likely suppressed as well. Finished landscaping work within the drip-lines of retained trees shall maintain existing grades and not disturb fine root mass at the ground surface. Finish landscape with beauty bark or new lawn on top of existing grade. Add no more than 2” to 4” of mulch/beauty bark or 2” of composted soil to establish new lawn. Raising the grade more than a few inches will have adverse impacts on fine roots by cutting off oxygen. 6. Tree Protection Measures The following guidelines are recommended to ensure that the designated space set aside for the preserved trees are protected and construction impacts are kept to a minimum. See the Redmond Zoning Code RZC 21.72.070 Tree Protection Measures.  Tree protection barriers shall be initially erected at 5’ outside of the drip-line prior to moving any heavy equipment on site.  Tree protection fencing shall only be moved where necessary to install improvements, but only as close as the Limits of Disturbance, as indicated on the attached plan.  Excavation limits should be laid out in paint on the ground to avoid over excavating.  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 up to the “Limits of Disturbance”.  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.  Areas excavated within the drip-line of retained trees should be thoroughly irrigated weekly during dry periods.  Preparations for final landscaping shall be accomplished by hand within the drip-lines of retained trees. Plantings within the drip lines shall be limited. Large equipment shall be kept outside of the tree protection zones. 7. Tree Retention A small percentage of the significant trees at Emerald Heights are located in the subject area. A total of 126 significant trees were assessed in the subject area. 11 of the significant trees are in poor condition. These 11 non-viable trees were not included in the tree calculation. 105 healthy, significant trees will be removed the subject area. One of these significant trees is a landmark tree. ---PAGE BREAK--- January 3rd, 2018 Emerald Heights IL Building - Redmond Page 6 AMERICAN FOREST MANAGEMENT, INC. 8. Tree Replacement Replacements trees may be required. Consult your city planner for tree replacement requirements. All replacement trees are to be planted on site. Replacement trees shall be at a minimum – 2 ½ inch caliper for deciduous species and 6 feet in height for coniferous species. 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. Please call if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Kelly Wilkinson [EMAIL REDACTED] ISA Certified Arborist #PN-7673A ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ---PAGE BREAK--- January 3rd, 2018 Emerald Heights IL Building - Redmond Page 7 AMERICAN FOREST MANAGEMENT, INC. Photos Tree #60 – bitter cherry with a forked trunk attachment. This tree has severe dieback and is in poor condition Tree #11698 – Western red cedar tree with a severe self-corrected lean ---PAGE BREAK--- January 3rd, 2018 Emerald Heights IL Building - Redmond Page 8 AMERICAN FOREST MANAGEMENT, INC. Tree #11725 – lodgepole pine with a severe self-corrected lean. This tree has very few live branches, only 20% of the crown is alive Tree #7336 – Western red cedar with visible trunk decay ---PAGE BREAK--- January 3rd, 2018 Emerald Heights IL Building - Redmond Page 9 AMERICAN FOREST MANAGEMENT, INC. Tree #11748 – Western red cedar with a forked trunk and included bark at the point of attachment ---PAGE BREAK--- For: Date: 1/3/2018 Inspector: Wilkinson Tree/ DBH Height Tag # Species (inches) (feet) Condition Viability Comments Proposal N S E W 59 Western red cedar 6 33 14 / 8 3 / 8 11 / 8 8 / 8 fair viable Asymmetrical crown remove 60 bitter cherry 5, 6 43 poor non-viable Forks at decay at attachment, severe dieback remove 61 Douglas fir 19 66 9 16 14 9 good viable remove 62 Western red cedar 8 31 12 / 9 10 / 9 10 / 9 11 / 9 good viable remove 63 Western red cedar 7 28 6 / 8 8 / 8 8 / 8 7 / 8 good viable remove 64 red alder 6 29 17 8 8 7 fair viable Leans North remove 65 Douglas fir 6 36 4 / 7 9 / 7 8 / 7 8 / 7 good viable remove 66 red alder 6 36 18 / 7 3 / 7 7 / 7 11 / 7 fair viable Thin crown remove 67 red alder 12, 4, 3 34 poor non-viable Severe decay remove 68 Douglas fir 6 36 7 10 9 9 good viable remove 69 Douglas fir 10 51 18 3 12 15 fair viable remove 70 big leaf maple 8 46 1 / 7 16 / 7 10 / 7 14 / 7 good viable remove 71 red alder 6 47 16 0 8 10 fair viable leans north remove 72 Oregon ash 6 42 14 5 0 16 fair viable remove 73 Oregon ash 6 38 17 3 12 8 fair viable remove 75 Western red cedar 10 35 12 20 16 17 good viable remove 76 Western red cedar 6 32 5 2 6 6 fair viable remove 77 Western red cedar 7 30 5 2 3 14 fair viable remove 78 big leaf maple 12 48 8 / 8 9 / 8 19 / 8 0 / 8 fair viable impacted 7094 Douglas fir 16 65 18 12 17 17 good viable remove 7096 Douglas fir 13 67 20 8 13 7 good viable remove 7100 Douglas fir 14 41 19 10 16 17 good viable remove 7332 big leaf maple 56 108 26 20 18 29 fair viable Five codominant stems, large dead branches, landmark tree remove 7333 Douglas fir 28 129 12 12 7 10 good viable remove 7334 Douglas fir 21 122 8 9 8 7 good viable remove 7335 big leaf maple 19 73 17 24 18 18 good viable Dead stems, largest has a DBH 6" remove 7336 Western red cedar 16 50 16 14 14 15 fair viable Decay pockets, full crown remove Drip-Line / Limits of Disturbance (feet) American Forest Management, Inc Tree Summary Table City of Redmond Emerald Heights Building IL 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- For: Date: 1/3/2018 Inspector: Wilkinson Tree/ DBH Height Tag # Species (inches) (feet) Condition Viability Comments Proposal N S E W Drip-Line / Limits of Disturbance (feet) American Forest Management, Inc Tree Summary Table City of Redmond Emerald Heights Building IL 7337 Western red cedar 15 44 poor non-viable Visible pockets of decay in lower trunk, dead top remove 7338 Douglas fir 28 15 17 14 12 good viable remove 7339 big leaf maple 13 74 14 / 8 18 / 8 8 / 8 16 / 8 good viable remove 7340 big leaf maple 13 59 22 / 8 20 / 8 18 / 8 3 / 8 good viable remove 7341 Douglas fir 18 94 15 13 8 15 fair viable Flat bark remove 7537 river birch 9 53 poor non-viable 20% live crown ratio remove 7552 big leaf maple 13 57 15 13 13 16 good viable remove 7553 Douglas fir 25 111 17 12 14 12 fair viable Large wound on south side remove 7563 Douglas fir 13 80 16 9 12 11 good viable remove 7564 Douglas fir 13 64 9 12 14 16 good viable remove 7565 Douglas fir 18 79 13 11 13 14 good viable remove 7570 bitter cherry 10 53 15 3 12 12 fair viable Self corrected lean remove 7571 Western red cedar 9 33 11 6 8 9 good viable remove 7581 London plane 7 29 15 8 13 12 good viable remove 7587 Western red cedar 17 55 13 3 14 8 fair viable Codominant stems, significant included bark, trunks twist remove 7596 London plane 7 33 8 12 17 10 good viable remove 7607 London plane 8 39 12 10 8 11 good viable remove 7620 river birch 8 52 16 6 12 3 fair viable top dieback remove 7622 Western red cedar 11 55 19 5 7 10 good viable remove 7623 Douglas fir 17 77 11 16 13 12 good viable remove 7626 red alder 10, 8 35 12 8 7 8 fair viable forks at base remove 7628 red alder 8 51 2 10 6 2 fair viable remove 7629 river birch 8 65 12 6 5 5 fair viable remove 7629 river birch 9 65 poor non-viable top 20% is dead, in decline remove 7630 red alder 8 70 3 6 7 7 fair viable remove 7633 red alder 8 55 10 15 12 9 fair viable remove 7634 red alder 13 52 poor non-viable Severe decay, 10% LCR remove 7638 Douglas fir 10 45 14 11 15 12 good viable remove 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- For: Date: 1/3/2018 Inspector: Wilkinson Tree/ DBH Height Tag # Species (inches) (feet) Condition Viability Comments Proposal N S E W Drip-Line / Limits of Disturbance (feet) American Forest Management, Inc Tree Summary Table City of Redmond Emerald Heights Building IL 7650 Douglas fir 28 98 10 10 11 9 good viable remove 7653 Western red cedar 13 45 9 / 9 8 / 9 10 / 9 12 / 9 good viable remove 11196 Western red cedar 25 65 18 15 15 12 good viable remove 11603 Douglas fir 13 40 20 11 15 18 good viable remove 11604 Western red cedar 8, 9 35 poor non-viable Decay, leans S remove 11605 Western red cedar 22 85 19 17 10 14 good viable remove 11606 Douglas fir 22 123 10 14 10 12 good viable remove 11607 Western red cedar 12 39 2 16 19 8 fair viable remove 11608 Western red cedar 10 12 4 2 11 fair viable Thin crown remove 11609 Western red cedar 10 41 2 14 6 10 fair viable remove 11610 Western red cedar 15 45 8 7 6 15 fair viable remove 11614 Western red cedar 10 53 7 8 5 12 fair viable remove 11615 Western red cedar 13 68 4 11 6 8 fair viable remove 11616 Western red cedar 14 32 poor non-viable In severe decline, dead top remove 11617 Western red cedar 12 50 6 10 13 4 fair viable Thin crown remove 11618 Western red cedar 18 65 12 16 15 4 good viable remove 11619 Douglas fir 19 108 10 / 10 14 / 10 14 / 10 16 / 10 good viable remove 11620 big leaf maple 9 75 9 / 7 17 / 7 15 / 7 6 / 7 fair viable remove 11621 Douglas fir 19 18 15 12 16 fair viable Self corrected lean S remove 11621 Douglas fir 20 85 7 19 11 14 fair viable Self corrected lean S remove 11653 London plane 12 36 12 16 15 7 fair viable remove 11698 Western red cedar 16 54 9 / 9 8 / 9 10 / 9 13 / 9 good viable Self corrected lean remove 11699 Western red cedar 16 59 7 / 9 16 / 9 7 / 9 12 / 9 good viable Self corrected lean remove 11700 Western red cedar 7 43 10 / 6 6 / 6 9 / 6 9 / 6 good viable remove 11701 Western red cedar 17 70 3 / 10 16 / 10 4 / 10 6 / 10 good viable remove 11702 Western red cedar 11 61 3 / 7 16 / 7 3 / 7 8 / 7 good viable remove 11703 Western red cedar 7 57 5 / 6 7 / 6 7 / 6 3 / 6 good viable remove 11704 Western red cedar 15 65 15 5 8 8 good viable remove 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- For: Date: 1/3/2018 Inspector: Wilkinson Tree/ DBH Height Tag # Species (inches) (feet) Condition Viability Comments Proposal N S E W Drip-Line / Limits of Disturbance (feet) American Forest Management, Inc Tree Summary Table City of Redmond Emerald Heights Building IL 11705 Western red cedar 22 78 13 / 10 9 / 14 12 / 14 8 / 14 good viable remove 11706 Western red cedar 23 71 4 / 15 19 / 15 7 / 15 8 / 15 good viable remove 11707 bitter cherry 7,4 60 4 / 6 9 / 6 0 / 6 7 / 6 fair viable Smaller stem is dead remove 11709 bitter cherry 10 68 3 / 7 9 / 7 5 / 7 7 / 7 fair viable remove 11710 Douglas fir 14 76 12 9 13 11 good viable remove 11711 red alder 7 55 14 / 6 6 / 6 8 / 6 9 / 6 fair viable remove 11712 bitter cherry 12 60 4 / 7 15 / 7 11 / 7 5 / 7 fair viable remove 11714 bitter cherry 10 62 16 / 6 8 / 6 8 / 6 12 / 6 fair viable remove 11716 Douglas fir 14 66 10 / 8 15 / 8 14 / 8 12 / 8 good viable remove 11717 red alder 17 55 poor non-viable Severe decay, growing around fence remove 11719 Douglas fir 26 120 10 / 13 13 / 13 12 / 13 8 / 13 good viable remove 11725 Lodgepole pine 8 28 poor non-viable Severe self corrected lean, 20% LCR remove 11726 Douglas fir 9 52 13 8 12 6 good viable remove 11727 red alder 10 66 18 12 10 7 fair viable remove 11736 river birch 8 70 10 0 13 7 fair viable forked trunk, top dieback remove 11737 big leaf maple 18, 8, 3 81 15 / 15 20 / 15 17 / 15 21 / 15 good viable Large root cut for trail, full crown, good vigor remove 11738 Douglas fir 27 115 8 / 12 16 / 15 6 / 15 14 / 15 fair viable Leans N remove 11739 Western red cedar 17 64 10 12 12 15 good viable remove 11741 Western red cedar 11 30 3 17 7 14 fair viable Keep as grouping with 11742, crooked top remove 11742 Western red cedar 13 38 15 8 8 14 fair viable Forks at 15' remove 11743 big leaf maple 26 96 13 / 15 14 / 15 13 / 15 17 / 15 good viable Forked trunk, full crown, good structure remove 11746 Western red cedar 21 85 17 / 12 15 / 12 12 / 12 19 / 12 good viable impacted 11747 Douglas fir 32 130 12 / 15 12 / 15 8 / 15 12 / 15 good viable impacted 11748 Western red cedar 28 90 15 / 14 16 / 14 15 / 14 18 / 14 fair viable Trunk forks at 10' impacted 11750 Douglas fir 22 100 12 / 11 8 / 11 12 / 11 11 / 11 good viable remove 11751 Western red cedar 7 36 7 / 6 7 / 6 10 / 6 6 / 6 good viable remove 11752 Western red cedar 18 70 12 / 8 8 / 10 15 / 10 13 / 10 good viable remove 11753 red alder 7 55 16 0 7 4 fair viable Leans north remove 11754 red alder 6, 2 45 15 0 7 3 fair viable Leans north remove 11771 Lodgepole pine 8 27 6 / 6 8 / 6 7 / 6 5 / 6 fair viable Leans N remove 11772 Douglas fir 29 98 7 / 16 19 / 16 14 / 16 15 / 16 good viable remove 11776 Western red cedar 6 22 9 / 6 9 / 6 8 / 6 10 / 6 good viable remove 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- For: Date: 1/3/2018 Inspector: Wilkinson Tree/ DBH Height Tag # Species (inches) (feet) Condition Viability Comments Proposal N S E W Drip-Line / Limits of Disturbance (feet) American Forest Management, Inc Tree Summary Table City of Redmond Emerald Heights Building IL 11777 Cascara 8 42 4 / 7 12 / 7 9 / 7 7 / 7 fair viable impacted 11781 Western red cedar 8 24 9 / 7 12 / 7 12 / 7 10 / 7 good viable remove 11783 Western red cedar 8 21 10 / 7 11 / 7 11 / 7 8 / 7 good viable remove 11832 Douglas fir 13 85 poor non-viable Leans north, crooked trunk remove 11833 Western red cedar 30 110 10 / 20 24 / 15 15 / 20 8 / 20 good viable impacted 11834 Western red cedar 14 85 10 / 8 19 / 8 5 / 8 20 / 8 good viable impacted 11835 red alder 7, 7, 6 45 12 / 8 8 / 8 18 / 8 4 / 8 fair viable Forks at base remove 11836 Western red cedar 18, 2 50 10 / 12 16 / 12 16 / 12 14 / 12 good viable impacted 11837 big leaf maple 11 70 6 / 6 8 / 6 19 / 6 5 / 6 fair viable impacted 11838 big leaf maple 12 65 20 / 7 0 / 7 16 / 7 6 / 7 fair viable impacted 11930 Douglas fir 25 115 16 / 16 8 / 16 5 / 16 9 / 16 good viable remove 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- LEGEND SIGNIFICANT CONIFER TREE SIGNIFICANT / LANDMARK DECIDUOUS TREE TREE TO REMAIN TREE TO BE REMOVED SIZE OF TREE AT DBH VIABLE TREE NON-VIABLE TREE NON-SIGNIFICANT TREE LIMIT OF WORK TREE PROTECTION FENCING DRIP LINE. TREE PROTECTION MEASURES TO BE MAINTAINED 5' BEYOND DRIPLINE OF TREES TO BE RETAINED WHERE APPLICABLE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE #16007 #12215 NS X TREE PRESERVATION SUMMARY TABLE Proposed Action and Description TREE TYPE Landmark (>30" dbh) Significant Totals Replacement Trees Req'd REMOVAL 1 11% 95 13% 96 13% 98 IMPACTED 0 0% 10 1% 10 1% RETAINED 8 89% 645 86% 653 86% TOTAL 9 100% 750 100% 759 100% THE TREE PRESERVATION SUMMARY TABLE ABOVE DIFFERS FROM THE SEPA TREE SUMMARY TABLE 4.C ON PAGE 11 OF THE SEPA CHECKLIST FORM. THE CITY OF REDMOND SEPARATES IMPACTED TREES FROM RETAINED TREES AS SHOWN ABOVE, WHEREAS THE SEPA TREE SUMMARY TABLE INCLUDES IMPACTED TREES WITH THE NUMBER OF RETAINED TREES. THIS IS WHY THERE IS A DISCREPANCY IN THE TREE COUNT NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF THE TWO TABLES. * THE TREE PRESERVATION SUMMARY TABLE ONLY INCLUDES VIABLE TREES. 67 REPLACEMENT TREES BEING PROPOSED TOWARDS CITY OF REDMOND CODE RZC 21.72.080. REMAINING 31 REPLACEMENT TREES WILL BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE FEE-IN-LIEU OF PROGRAM OR SIMILAR. TREE PROTECTION DETAIL EQ. EQ. ZONE A DIA. = 2X ZONE B DIA. = X ZONE C DIA. = .5X DRIPLINE = X NOTES 1. REDMOND ZONING CODE 21.72.080 REQUIRES: 1:1 REPLACEMENT FOR SIGNIFICANT TREE (6"-30" DIA.), 3:1 REPLACEMENT FOR LANDMARK TREES (>30" DIA.) 2. MINIMUM SIZES FOR REPLACEMENT TREES SHALL BE: 6' HEIGHT FOR EVERGREEN TREES, 212" CALIPER FOR DECIDUOUS TREES 3. THE ADMINISTRATION MAY CONSIDER SMALLER SIZED REPLACEMENT TREES IF THE APPLICANT CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT SMALLER TREES ARE MORE SUITED TO THE SPECIES, SITE CONDITIONS AND PURPOSE, AND THAT SUCH TREES WILL BE PLANTED IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES TO MEET THE INTENT. 4. 95 SIGNIFICANT TREES AND 1 LANDMARK TREE ARE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A MIX OF CONIFER AND DECIDUOUS TREES ON SITE AS PART OF THE BUILDING'S LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS. 5. TREE PROTECTION MEASURES TO BE MAINTAINED 5' BEYOND DRIPLINE OF TREES TO BE RETAINED. 6. REFER TO SHEET TP2 FOR THE TREE SUMMARY TABLE 7. TREE PRESERVATION SUMMARY TABLE ACCOUNTS FOR TREES ON ENTIRE SITE. 8. REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN FOR REPLACEMENT TREES & PLANT SCHEDULE Project Number LLA0049.16 275 5th Street Suite 100 Bremerton, WA 98337 (360) 377-8773 FAX 792-1385 [EMAIL REDACTED] 10901 176TH CIRCLE NE REDMOND, WA 98052 REVISION SCHEDULE ISSUED: Lyon Landscape Architects SHEET: Tree Preservation Plan Arborist Report Prepared by: American Forest Management 11415 NE 128th St, Suite 110 Kirkland, WA 98034 [PHONE REDACTED] Inspector: Kelly Wilkinson June 13, 2017 Courtyard - Independent Living Building TP1 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Tree Preservation Plan Project Number LLA0049.16 275 5th Street Suite 100 Bremerton, WA 98337 (360) 377-8773 FAX 792-1385 [EMAIL REDACTED] 10901 176TH CIRCLE NE REDMOND, WA 98052 REVISION SCHEDULE ISSUED: Lyon Landscape Architects SHEET: Arborist Report Prepared by: American Forest Management 11415 NE 128th St, Suite 110 Kirkland, WA 98034 [PHONE REDACTED] Inspector: Kelly Wilkinson Initial Report: June 13, 2017 Updated Report: January 3, 2018 Tree Summary Table - Courtyard - Independent Living Building, Emerald Heights Tree Summary Table TP2