Reyhner Comments, October 5, 2020 To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing in regard to the proposed development, Woodlands at Redondo. I am a resident
on South 304th Street, and I have watched the history of the property for over fifty years. It has
been a beautiful woods and wetlands and the start of Redondo Creek. The owners had it
declared a Forest land in 1983 and paid minimal property taxes for decades. They just recently
paid about $43,000 in back property taxes in order to develop the property into high density
housing.
Although the development does affect me, I do not live within the automatic area of
notification. Therefore, I did not respond in the public comment time. Because of the
pandemic, I am not going out and about much and was unaware of what was happening until
told by a neighbor. I am somewhat in favor of something being done with the property. The
owners have allowed it to become a haven for homeless camps. There has been crime, tons of
garbage, and some major fires on the property because of the camps. However, I am not sure
that it is in the best interest of Federal Way to have sixty-eight homes built on this particular
piece of property
There are several reasons why it is not the best way to develop the property. First, sixty-eight
homes will increase traffic on South 304th Street which already is overburdened as a bypass
with speeding vehicles. As we know, more traffic creates more pollution which will ultimately
impact Steel Lake with runoff. The Steel Lake Management District was formed to protect the
lake, primarily from invasive weeds. However, the LMD also deals with other issues impacting
the health of the lake. I am not sure the LMD or the city was contacted in regard to what
impact this development could potentially have on the health of the lake. There is also a
wetlands in connection to the lake on the south of South 304th street. There is a culvert that
runs under the road into the proposed development creating Redondo Creek. It appears the
water always runs north from the lake. However, at the height of the rainy season, this is not
true. The water in the lake gets several feet higher, and there could possibly be water coming
back into the lake from Redondo Creek.
Second, the building of sixty-eight homes will have a detrimental impact on the wetlands. I do
not understand all the buffering terminology in the report, but I do not think any reduction in
buffering should be allowed anywhere in the project. If the development is allowed at the
proposed density, there should be absolutely no reduction in the 150’ required buffering. I do
not think averaging should be allowed. There has been significant impact on the area because
of years of the owners allowing homeless camps to remain on the property. According to the
report, it sounds as if this disregard for the property and wetlands has allowed damage to the
creek and surrounding wetlands. This should not be a reason for allowing less buffering. The
wetland should instead be required to be restored. The report indicated that the creek does
not support fish because of a natural barrier. If that barrier were to be removed at some point,
Redondo Creek once again could be a viable fish habitat. If a high density development were to
be allowed, that would eliminate any possibility of any restoration of the creek in the future. In
2014 the City of Federal Way deemed it a minor creek. There is no reason why it could not be a
thriving more important creek. Since it has been on private property, nothing has been done to
enhance Redondo Creek throughout the years. There is also an abundance of wildlife including
birds and small mammals living in that area which will lose their habit. The property has
Douglas fir, alder, huckleberries, and a wide variety of other plants necessary for wildlife to
thrive. If the property is developed, that habitat will also be eliminated forever. Many of the
suggested plantings including Pacific Wax Myrtle are not native to that property.
Third, although creating more housing in Federal Way is important, developing this property is
not beneficial. Sixty-eight homes built so close together on the allowable thirteen of the
twenty-one acres will generate more people, vehicles, noise, and environmental pollution in an
endangered area. Wetlands should be preserved over making the maximum amount of money.
In conclusion, I think it would be appropriate to build thirty-four or fewer homes on the
thirteen acres. The lots would be much larger, and the surface run off would be absorbed into
the ground before it reaches the wetlands and Redondo Creek. High density housing does not
allow for absorption of runoff. Higher density generates more surface runoff into the wetlands
than lower density. The wetland was deemed a Category II rather than a Category I by just a
matter of points. If it were a Category I, homes would need to be built 300 feet or more from
Redondo Creek.
Sincerely,
Margaret Reyhner