Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
17-102722
CITY OF Federal Allay July 18, 2017 Mr. David Jung 622 South 3201h Street, Suite A Federal Way, WA 98003 Re: File #17-102722-PC, PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY Federal Way Senior Housing, 30300 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Jung: CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway. com Jim Ferrell, Mayor Thank you for participating in the preapplication conference with die City of Federal Way's Development Review Committee (DRC) held July G, 2017. We hope that the information discussed at that meeting was helpful in understanding the general requirements for your project as submitted. This letter summarizes comments given to you at the meeting by the members of the DRC. The members who reviewed your project and provided comments include staff from the city's Planning and Building Divisions and Public Works Department, and representatives from Lakehaven Water & Sewer District and South Ding Fire & Rescue. Some sections of the Federal Way Revised Cade (F%RC) and relevant information handouts are enclosed with this letter. Please be advised, this letter does not represent all applicable codes. In preparing your formal application, please refer to the complete FWRC and other relevant codes for all additional requirements that may apply to your project. The key contact for your project is Senior Planner Stacey Welsh, AICP. She may be contacted at 253-835- 2634, or staceywelsh �citffederalwar.com. For specific technical questions about your project, please contact the appropriate DRC representative as listed below. Otherwise, any general questions about the preapplication and permitting process can be referred to your key contact. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposal is to construct a 32 unit senior housing development on a 4.2 acre site. MAJOR ISSUES Outlined below is a summary of the major issues of your project based on the plans and information submitted for the preapplication review. These issues can change due to modifications and revisions in the plans. These major issues only represent comments that the DRC consider most significant to your project and do not include the majority of the comments provided. The major issues section is only provided as a means to highlight critical requirements or issues. Please be sure to read the entire department comments made in the next section of this letter. Mr. David Jung Page 2of19 July 18, 2017 • Planning Division 1. The project requires submittal of the following land use applications: Use Process IV, SEPA Checklist, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and Shoreline Variance. 2. The following items require a Use Process III application; however, since a Use Process IV is triggered by both the Shoreline Variance and Wetland Buffer Modification, the following will'be processed as part of the Use Process IV application for the Shoreline Variance and Wetland Buffer Modification: land use review for the senior housing project including community design guidelines, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and a minor improvement (walking path) in the wetland buffer. Zoning code amendments pertaining to the multi -family moratorium were adopted by the City Council in May 2017. Among other items, the code update now requires one parking space per unit and the property must provide usable open space in a total amount equal to at least 100 square feet per dwelling unit (FWRC 19.220.080, notes #8-9). The updates have been incorporated into the FWRC, which can be accessed online at: httP:I/w%vw.codepublishing.comllX�AlFedexal�Vav (Ordinance No. 17-834 is enclosed). * Public Works Development Services Division Surface water runoff control and water quality treatment will be required per the 2016 King County Surface rater Design Manual (KCSWDM) and the City of Federal Way Addendum to the 2016 KCSWDM. This project meets the requirements for a Full Drainage Review. At the time of land use site plan submittal, a preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR), addressing the relevance of the project to the nine core and five special requirements of the KCSWDM will be required. A Level 1 downstream analysis shall also be provided in the preliminary TIR. 2. The project lies within a conservation flow control area; thus, the applicant must design the flow control facility to meet these performance criteria. 3. FWRC 11.05.110 requires that overhead utility lines be relocated underground if over 500 feet, or three spans are affected by a project. This condition will be applied to South 304th Street. * Public Works Traffic Division ■ Transportation Concurrency Management (FWRC 19.90) — A transportation concurrency permit with the application fee of $1,620 is required for the proposed project. • Traffic Impact Fees (FWRC 19.91) — Traffic impact fees are required and will be assessed at the building permit stage. ■ Frontage Improvements g7WKC 19.135.040) — Construct street frontage improvements and dedicate right-of-way along the property frontage on South 304th Street and SR 99 (Pacific Highway South). ■ Access Management (FWRC 19.133.260) — The development shall meet access management standards. File 17-102722-00-PC Doc ID: 76033 Mr. David Jung Page 3 of 19 July 18, 2017 Lakehaven Water & Sewer 1. A Lakehaven Developer Extension (DE) Agreement will be required to construct new water distribution system facilities for the proposed development. 2. A Lakehaven Developer Extension (DE) Agreement will be required to construct new sanitary sewer system facilities necessary for the proposed development, including extend-to-far-edge(s) in accordance with long-standing Lakehaven policy. • South King Fire & Rescue 1. See complete details below regarding access, hydrants, fire alarm systems, and sprinkler systems. DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Outlined below are the comments made by the representatives of each department present at the preapp}ication conference. Each section should be read thoroughly. If you have questions, please contact the representative listed for that section. Planning Division (Stacey Welsh, 253-835-2634, sta ev welsh(_,rstyoffederaiway.com) 1. Zoning Designation and Use — The subject property is designated Community Business (BC); the proposed use is senior citizen housing, which is a permitted use in the BC zone as listed within and subject to the regulations set forth in the Use Zone Chart of FWRC 19.220.080. Per FWRC 19.05.040, the definition of "dwelling unit" includes: (6) "Dwelling unit, senior citizen housing" means housing available for the exclusive occupancy of persons over 55 years of age. 2. Land Use Application — Per the zone chart, the project requires a Process III; however, see the Critical Areas Section below for details on requirements for a Use Process IV Land Use application with SEPA. Process IV is a review process conducted by city staff with a final decision issued by the Hearing Examiner following a public hearing. The Process IV decision criteria are contained in FWRC 19.70.150(3). 3. State Environmental PofigAct (SEPA) —Pursuant to FWRC 14.15.030(1), the project is subject to environmental review under the State Envirmnmental Policy Act (SEPA), as the proposal exceeds the flexible thresholds (development of more than 20 dwelling units and 40 parking spaces). An environmental threshold determination made by the Director of Community Development must be issued prior to land use or building permit approval. Public notice will be required as established in FWRC Title 14. 4. Land Use Review Timeframes — The Planning Division will notify the applicant of the application status within 28 days of submittal. If the application is determined complete, staff will issue a Letter of Complete Application. FWRC limits the administrative review to 120 days from the date of a complete application. The 120-day review period will stop any time the applicant has been requested by the city to correct plans, perform required studies, or provide additional information needed to issue a decision. The review period will begin within 14 days following submittal of requested items. Please be advised that any request for corrections and/or additional information must be provided within 180 days of written notification, or the land use application will expire. Doc ID: 76033 File 17-102722-00-PC Mr. David Jung Page 4 of 19 July 18, 2017 5. Public Notice — Process IV applications require a public notice and comment period. Within 14 days of issuing the Letter of Complete Application, a Notice of Application will be published in the Federal Way Mirror, posted on the subject property, placed at the city's three designated notice boards, and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. The notice of public hearing must be distributed at least 14 calendar days before the hearing in the same manner as the notice of application, except no posting needs to be done on or near the subject property. 6. General Zoning Regulation — The Use Zone Chart of FWRC 19.220.080 provides regulations for the proposed senior citizen housing use. The applicant should consult the referenced Use Zone Chart prior to submitting a Master Land Use Application to verify all site components and proposed uses will comply with city code. The following is only a portion of the zoning regulations governing the proposed use in the BC zone: a. Required Yards, Lot Coverage, Builclirrg Height — Required yards, lot coverage, and building height for retail are: i. Front/side/rear setback — 20'/5'/5' (per Special Regulation and Note #2 a 20' side yard setback applies off of the property line along the adjacent parcel to the east, which is zoned RS5.0). ii. Maximum lot coverage — None iii. Maximum building height — 65' above average building elevation, except any portion of a structure on the subject property within 100' of a single-family residential zone, then that portion of the structure shall not exceed 30' above average building elevation. (Applies off of the property line along the adjacent parcel to the east, which is zoned RS5.0). b. Parking— Required parking is one space for each unit. Design criteria are based on the enclosed department handout. Typical 90-degree design standards are 9 x 18 foot stalls with 25-foot drive aisles. With your application, provide a written description and indicate on the site plan where parking spaces for guests will be accommodated. c. Open Space — Under FWRC 19.220.080 (notes #8-9): i. The subject property must provide usable open space in a total amount equal to at least 100 square feet per dwelling unit and may include common open spaces such as plazas, recreation rooms, rooftop terraces, p-patches, pools, active lobbies, and atriums. All eligible usable open space shall also meet the requirements specified in FWRC 19.115.115. A fee -in -lieu payment may be utilized for up to 50 percent of the usable open space as specified in FWRC 19.115.115. ii. Any common open space requirements for senior housing may be reduced at the discretion of the director, if an open space study documents that less common open space will be adequate to serve the needs of the residents. With your application, please provide a written description of those areas intended as open space. Include on the submittal drawings the size and location of each recreation area, the intended users, and indicate whether it is internal or external. 7. Landscaping — Landscape requirements are contained in FWRC Chapter 19.125 "Outdoors, Yards, and Landscaping." Following are the key landscape requirements for the project. He 17-102722-00-PC Doc ID: 76033 Mr. David Jung Page 5of19 July 18, 2017 (a) A landscape plan prepared by a Washington State licensed landscape architect shall be submitted with the formal application. Please follow general guidelines outlined in FWRC 19.125.040(1) through (28) when preparing the site plan and planting schedule. (b) Per FWRC 19.125.060(7), for properties within the BC zone: a) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all properties abutting public rights -of -way and ingress/egress easements. (Applies along Pacific Highway South and South 304th Street.) b) Type I landscaping 15 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property abutting a residential zoning district. (Applies along the northern and eastern property lines.) c) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines except as noted.in subsections (a) and (b), above. (Applies along the two adjacent property lines for the property at 30390 Pacific Highway South.) 8. Tree Density Requirements — A tree and vegetation retention plan as required under FWRC 19.120.040(2) must also be submitted with the Process III application. The tree and vegetation retention/replacement plan must be prepared by a certified arborist or certified landscape architect. The standards require each development to maintain a minimum tree unit density. The project will be subject to tree density requirements of FWRC 19.120.130(1); note that 20 tree -units per acre are required for BC zoned sites. A tree unit is a value assigned to existing trees retained on the property, or replacement trees. The larger the tree, the greater value it is assigned. Required tree density can be composed of retained trees and replacement plantings per FWRC 19.120.130. The tree and vegetation plan must clearly show where the tree units are to be located. The formal application must indicate what trees are to be removed. In the case of the 4.23-acre site, 85 tree units are required (20 x 4.23 = 85). Tree unit credits are in Table 2 of FWRC 19.120.130(2). The required number of tree units may be less than 85, given FWRC 19.120.130(3). Under that code section, the total number of tree units required to be provided is calculated by multiplying gross site acreage, minus any proposed public or private streets and regulated critical areas (excluding buffers). If an applicant cannot provide for the minimum tree units per acre on site, off -site mitigation, or fee -in - lieu payment to the city's urban forestry account, may be approved by the director. See FWRC 19.120.140 for off -site mitigation and fee -in -lieu payment requirements. Clearing & Grading — The applicant is required to obtain clearing and grading plan approval as a component of Process III approval. Consult FWRC 19.120.040(1) for items that are required to be included on the plan, including the anticipated amounts of cut and all. Clearing and grading plans are reviewed and approved in conjunction with land development pen -nit associated with the proposed development. Approval and Notice to Proceed shall be required prior to commencing clearing and grading activities on the site. Reference FWRC 19.120.060(2). 10. Community Design Guidelines — Review of the proposal under the city's design guidelines, FWRC Chapter 19.115, is required for the project and will occur in conjunction with the Use Process review. The principal applicable guidelines for the project are noted below. However, this does not necessarily include Doc ID: 76033 File 17-102722-00-PC Mr. David Jung Page 6 of 19 July 18, 2017 all applicable guidelines, and project designers must consult the guidelines in their entirety in preparing an application. The application must include a written narrative identifying how the proposal complies with the applicable design guidelines, as detailed. a. FWRC 19.115.010(2) CPTED — Implement Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles to reduce opportunities for criminal activities to occur. The city's Police Department and Planning Division will evaluate the formal application and review for compliance with CPTED principles. Special consideration to incorporate principles to all pedestrian routes of travel, courtyard or plaza areas, and the parking garage is strongly encouraged. A completed CPTED checklist must be submitted with your application. i. Natural Surveillance — Promote visibility of public spaces and areas. ii. Access Control — Identify techniques that deter unauthorized access and/or inappropriate access. iii. Ownership — Reduce perception of areas as ownerless. b. FWRC 19.115.050 Site Design — Refer to all sections of this chapter for site design standards. Key sections include: i. (1) General criteria (a)-(d), (f), and (g) ii. (4) Pedestrian circulation and public spaces (b)-(c) iii. (5) Landscaping iv. (6) Commercial services (b) v. (7) Miscellaneous (a) c. FWRC 19.115.060 Building Design — (1) Emphasize natural topography. d. FWRC 19.115.090(1) District Gui"nes forBC— Key design requirements of this section apply to the project (FWRC 19.115.090[l][b], [c], [f], [g], [i]-[r]). FWRC 19.115.090(1)(p): Building facades that exceed 120 feet in length and are visible from an adjacent residential zone, right-of-way, public park, or recreation area shall incorporate a significant structural modulation (offset). The minimum depth of the modulation shall be approximately equal to 10 percent of the total length of the subject facade and the minimum width shall be approximately twice the minimum depth. The modulation shall be integral to the building structure from base to roofline. (This applies to the nine unit section.) ii. FWRC 19.115.090 Subsections (1)(g) through (r) apply to residential uses. Please provide a design narrative with the formal application to detail how the senior citizen housing project addresses these requirements. 11. Garbage and Recycling receptacles — FWRC 19.125.150 requires that storage areas for garbage and recycling receptacles be provided for each project and contain design guidelines and space requirements. Locations for the recycling and garbage facilities must be depicted on the formal site plan. Include the square footage of each facility provided and depict routes of travel for service providers. File 17-102722-00-PC Doc ID: 76033 Mr. David Jung Page 7 of 19 July 18, 2017 12. Affordable Units — As 32 dwelling units are proposed, two units must be considered "affordable" as defined by FWRC 19.110.010. The formal application must reflect the affordable housing requirement and provide details of how it will be accomplished. Note that prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building, an agreement in a form approved by the city requiring affordable dwelling units to remain as affordable housing for the life of the project must be recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections at the expense of the applicant. 13. Scboollmpact Fees — School impact fees are required for residential dwelling units. However, housing units for the elderly are exempt from school impact fees pursuant to FWRC 19.95.060(1)(a), so long as this use is maintained in perpetuity and the necessary covenants or declarations of restrictions are recorded on the property to ensure that no children will reside in the development. Please include a statement with the formal application as to how you will meet this requirement. 14. Critical Areas & Shoreline Re ulations — The property contains three critical areas: a wetland, stream, and erosion hazard area (geologically hazardous area), see FWRC 15.05.040(4). The property owner applied for direct services under city file number 16-102464-AD, and the consulting firm ESA was retained to review and assess the wetland and stream. In their January 26, 2017, memo ESA concluded that: "The wetland on the Jung property is considered an "associated wetland" of Steel Lake due to its hydrologic connection via the seasonal stream that flows under S 304th Street to the lake. Steel Lake and its associated wetlands are regulated as shorelines areas under the Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) (Figure 4), which was updated and adopted in 2011 ... According to the criteria, Wetland 1 is a Category II wedand and has a standard wetland buffer of 100 feet. The seasonal stream meets the definition of a "minor stream" and has a standard stream buffer of 50 feet." The wetland is shown as a regulated shoreline; therefore, the wetland and stream ratings, buffers, and associated review processes are contained within FWRC Title 15. Chapter 15.05 contains the shoreline management regulations and Chapter 15.10 contains the applicable critical areas regulations for the wetland, stream, and their associated buffers. The applicable shoreline designation is Shoreline Residential. The development is not exempt per WAC 173-27-040; therefore, a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (FWRC 15.05.150) is required rather than a Shoreline Exemption. Typically processed as a Use Process III application (FWRC 15.05.150[2]), a Use Process IV application will be required for this Shoreline Substantial Development Permit since a Shoreline Variance is required (FWRC 15.05.160[2]), as described below. The submittal shows a proposed wetland buffer reduction from 100 to 50 feet for a portion of the project. This requires review and approval of a Wetland Buffer Modification (FWRC 15.10.270[61), which is processed as a Use Process IV application. When FWRC 15.10.270(6) is utilized for a project proposal, a Shoreline Variance is required if the overall proposed buffer width reduction exceeds 25 percent (FWRC 15.05.040[4] [a] [ii]). The proposal includes a 50 percent reduction. A Shoreline Variance is processed as a Use Process IV application (FWRC 15.05.160[2]). When a Shoreline Variance is requested, the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline Variance shall be reviewed under the provisions of Process IV, and the Hearing Examiner shall be the final approval authority for the city, after which the Department of Ecology is the final approval authority under WAC 173-27-200. File 17-102722-00-PC Doc ID: 76033 Mr. David Jung Page 8 of 19 July 18, 2017 In review of all shoreline permits or developments of more than four residential dwelling units, consideration of public access and joint use of community recreational facilities shall be required (FWRC 15.05.040 [7]) The proposal discusses a planned walking path to be located in the wetland buffer. This minor improvement within the buffer requires review and approval of Use Process III application (FWRC 15.10.270[41). Note. on the submitted existing and conceptual site plans, buffers are labelled incorrectly. The drawing shows a 100-foot wetland setback measured outward from the seasonal stream. Buffers are measured outward from the boundary of the critical area. Outside of the shoreline jurisdiction, FWRC Title 19.145, "Environmentally Critical Areas" applies. A geotechnical report must address the criteria listed in both FWRC 15.10.160 and 19.145.240 regarding the erosion hazard area. In summary, the project requires submittal of the following land use applications: Use Process IV, SEPA Checklist, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and Shoreline Variance. The following items require a Use Process III application; however, since a Use Process IV is triggered by both the Shoreline Variance and Wetland Buffer Modification, the following will be processed as part of the Use Process IV application for the Shoreline Variance and Wetland Buffer Modification: land use review for the senior housing project including community design guidelines, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and a minor improvement (walking path) in the wetland buffer. The project submittal must address ALL listed criteria for the various code sections discussed in this section. Qualified professionals must be retained to prepare required reports and provide technical and code support for the proposal. 15. Appkegfion Fees & Submittal — Please contact the Permit Center at 253-835-2607 for updated fee schedule information for applications and permits. PUBLIC WORKS — DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION (Ann Dower 253-835-2732, ann.dower ci offederalwa .�om) Land Use Issues — Stormwater Surface water runoff control and water quality treatment will be required per the 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and the City of Federal Way Addendum to the 2016 KCSWDM. This project meets the requirements for a Full Drainage Review. At the time of land use site plan submittal, a preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR), addressing the relevance of the project to the nine core and five special requirements of the KCSWDM will be required. A Level 1 downstream analysis shall also be provided in the preliminary TIR. The city has 1" = 100', five-foot contour planimetric maps that may be used for basin analysis. 2. The project lies within a conservation flow control area; thus, the applicant must design the flow control facility to meet these performance criteria. In addition to flow control facilities, Best Management Practices (BMP's) are required as outlined in the KCSWDM. The project also lies within an Enhanced Basic Water Quality Area. Water quality treatment shall be designed to meet the treatment criteria of the Enhanced Basic Water Quality Menu. File 17-102722-00-PC Doc ID: 76033 Mr. David Jung Page 9 of 19 July 18, 2017 3. Soil logs prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer or septic designer must be provided to verify infiltration suitability. A geotechnical report will be necessary if stormwater facilities or BMP's are located on or near steep slopes. Refer to the 2016 KCSWDM for further details. 4. Detention and water quality facilities must be above ground (i.e. open pond). Underground facilities are allowed only with approval from the City of Federal Way Public Works Department. 5. Show the proposed location and dimensions of the detention and water quality facilities on the preliminary plans. 6. If more than one acre will be disturbed during construction, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction stormwater permit may be required. Information regarding this permit can be obtained from the Washington State Department of Ecology at 360-407-6048, or w%vw.egywa ov/programs/wq/stormwater/constm,c on/index.litml. 7. If work is to be done below the ordinary high water mark, a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit may be required. Information regarding this permit can be obtained from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Right -of -Way Improvements 1. See the Traffic Division comments from Senior Transportation Planning Engineer Sarady Long for traffic related items. 2. If dedication of additional right-of-way is required to install street frontage improvements, the dedication shall be conveyed to the city through a statutory warranty deed. The dedicated area must have clear title prior to recording. 3. All stormwater treatment and detention requirements outlined above may apply to any improvements within the public right-of-way. 4. FWRC 11.05.110 requires that overhead utility lines be relocated underground if over 500 feet, or three spans are affected by a project. This condition will be applied to South 304th Street. 5. FWRC 19.135.280 requires that driveways serving residential uses may not be located closer than 25 feet to any street intersection. Lots and intersections within new subdivisions or short plats must be designed to meet this standard. Building or EN Permit Issues 1. Engineered plans are required for clearing, grading, road construction, and utility work. Plans must be reviewed and approved by the city. Engineering review fees are $2,430.00 for the first 12 hours of review, and $135.00 per hour for additional review time. A final TIR shall be prepared for the project and submitted with the engineering plans. Both the TIR and the plans will require the signature/seal of a professional engineer registered/licensed in the state of Washington. File 17-102722-00-PC Doc ID: 76033 Mr. David Jung Page 10of19 July 18, 2017 2. In addition to engineering approval, short plats and subdivisions are required to obtain a separate permit for grading. Details and fees may be obtained from the Building Division. 3. The Federal Way Public Works Development Standards Manual (including standard detail drawings, standard notes, and engineering checklists) is available to assist the applicant's engineer in preparing the plans and TIR on the city's website at: w%vw.ciiyoffederal,%vay.com/node/1467. 4. Bonding is required for all street improvements and temporary erosion and sediment control measures associated with the project. The bond amount shall be 120 percent of the estimated costs of the improvements. An administrative fee deposit will need to accompany the bond to cover any possible legal fees in the event the bond must be called. Upon completion of the installation of the improvements, and final approval of the Public Works Inspector, the bond will be reduced to 30 percent of the original amount and held for a two-year maintenance period. The developer will be responsible for the maintenance of all storm drainage facilities (including the detention and water quality facilities) and street systems during the two-year maintenance period. During that time, the Public Works Inspector will make periodic visits to the site to ensure the developer's compliance with the maintenance requirements. Upon satisfactory completion of the two-year maintenance period, the remainder of the bond will be released. Maintenance for public roads and subdivision drainage facilities then become the responsibility of the city. Maintenance for private roads and drainage facilities, including short plats, remain the responsibility of the individual property owners. 6. When topographic survey information is shown on the plans, the vertical datum block shall include the phrase "DATUM: N.G.V.D.-29" or "DATUM: K.C.A.S.," on all sheets where vertical elevations are called out. 7. Drawings submitted for plan review shall be printed on 24" x 36" or 22" x 34" paper. Site plans shall be drawn at a scale of 1" = 20', or larger. Architectural scales are not permitted on engineering plans. 8. Provide cut and fill quantities on the clearing and grading plan. 9. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) measures, per Appendix D of the 2016 KCSWDM, must be shown on the engineering plans. 10. The site plan shall show the location of any existing and proposed utilities in the areas affected by construction. PUBLIC WORKS — TRAFFIC DIVISION (Sarady Long, 253-835-2743, saradv.long@_ci"ffed_eraiway.com) Transportation Concurrency Analysis (FWRC 19.90) 1. A concurrency permit is required for this development project. The PW Traffic Division will perform a concurrency analysis to determine if adequate roadway capacity exists during the weekday PM peak period to accommodate the proposed development. Please note that supplemental transportation analysis and concurrency mitigation may be required if the proposed project creates an impact not anticipated in the six -year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). File 17-102722-00-PC Doc ID: 76033 Mr. David Jung Page 11 of 19 July 18, 2017 2. Based on the submitted materials for a 32 unit condo/townhouse, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation — 811, Edition, land use code 230 (Residential Condo/Townhouse), the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 17 new weekday PM peak hour trips and 186 daily trips. 3. The estimated fee for the concurrency permit application is $4,650.00 (11 — 50 trips). This fee is an estimate and based on the materials submitted for the preapplication conference. The fee will be determined based on the new weekday PM peak hour trips as identified in the concurrency trip generation. The applicant has the option of having an independent traffic engineer prepare the concurrency analysis consistent with city procedures; however, the fee remains the same. Transportation Impact Fees (TIF) (FWRC 19.91) 1. Based on the submitted materials for 32 condo/townhouse units, the estimate traffic impact fee is $82,865. Please note, the actual impact fee will be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time a completed building permit application is filed and paid prior to permit issuance (FWRC 19.100.070[3][a]). Street Frontage Improvements (FWRC 19.135) The applicant/owner would be expected to construct street improvements consistent with the planned roadway cross -sections as shown in Map III-4 in Chapter III of the F'ea�ral Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) shown as Table III-10 (FWRC 19.135.040). Based on the materials submitted, staff conducted a limited analysis to determine the required street improvements. The applicant would be expected to construct improvements on the following streets to the city's planned roadway cross -sections: a South 304th Street is a Principal Collector planned as a Type "K" street, consisting of a 44- foot street with curb and gutter, 6-foot planter strips with street trees, 8-foot sidewalks, and street lights in a 78-foot right-of-way. Assuming a symmetrical cross section, 9-foot right-of- way and ha -street improvements are required as measured from the street Centerline. Additionally, pedestrian connectivity to SR 99 should be provided. SR-99 is a Principal Arterial planned as a Type "A" street, consisting of a 90-foot street with curb and gutter, 6-foot planter strips with street trees, 8-foot sidewalks, and street lights in a 124-foot right-of-way. SR 99 is improved with six lanes, including vertical curb/ gutter, sidewalks, streetlights, etc., on both sides of the street. Therefore, street improvement along the frontage would not be required. Please note, additional improvement would be required with new driveway cut. 2. The applicant may make a written request to the Public Works Director to modify, defer, or waive the required street improvements (FWRC 19.135.070). Information about a right-of-way modification requests are available through the Public Works Development Services Division. These modification requests have a nominal review fee currently at $290 ($270 plus $20 recording fee). 3. Access management standards are based on roadway safety and capacity requirements. FWRC 19.135.280 provides access standards for streets based on planned roadway cross -sections. Please note that access classifications are per Drawing MA in the Public Works Development Standards. Doc ID: 76033 File 17-102722-00-PC Mr. David Jung Page 12 of 19 July 18, 2017 4. WAC 468-52-040 limits access on state highways to access spacing of 250 feet, with only one access per parcel. Pacific Highway South is access class "1," where left access may be permitted every 330 feet and left -out access is only permitted at signalized intersections (FWRC 19.135.280). The driveway on South 304th Street shall be located at least 150 feet from any other driveway. Please show all neighboring driveways within 150 feet of the proposed driveway on South 304th Street. 6. Adequate throat length must be provided and should be at least 40 feet from the edge of pavement or curb. 7. Access may be further restricted if such access would interfere with the 95th percentile queue lengths from any existing traffic control device. 6. The director may grant a modification administratively to reduce spacing standards by up to 20 percent of the tabular values with supporting documentation (FWRC 19.135.290). Please note that these modification requests have a nominal review fee of ,$290. Once preliminary traffic queuing analysis has been completed, the applicant's traffic engineer may submit a written request for access modification if desired. 7. For driveways that serve uses other than single-family residential uses and zero lot line townhouse development, the maximum driveway width is 30 feet for a two-lane two-way driveway and 40 feet for a three -lane two-way driveway (FWRC 19.135.270). Driveway widths may be increased in order to provide adequate width for vehicles that may be reasonably expected to use the driveway, as determined by the Public Works Director. 8. Verify the intersection sight distance at the proposed driveway on South 304f Street in meeting AASHTO sight distance. PUBLIC WORKS — SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING DIVISION (Rob Van Orsow, 253-835-2770, to by@ ci1yollfederalway.com) Solid Waste & Recycling Design Considerations Space Required and Enclosure Basics + Adequate space allocation for interior and exterior garbage, recycling, food waste, waste oil, yard debris, hazardous waste, or biohazard collection containers. Minimum recycling space allocation is established by FWRC 19.125.150 (enclosed). Note that this typically makes up only about 1/3 of the combined space needed for solid waste and recycling containers combined. In general, per unit services costs are lower for larger containers emptied less frequently. Sites that do not allow ample space for containers will tend to have higher service costs over the long term. 0 Basic solid waste and recycling services can be accommodated within a single enclosure with clear interior dimensions measuring 10 feet deep by 20 feet across. A two -door swing -open or roll -open gate should span the front of the enclosure. When gate doors are opened, no structure or hardware should. remain above grade across the enclosure opening. Gate pins/holes are preferred for holding gates in both closed and open positions to ease service access and maximize the life of gate hardware. File 17-102722-00-PC Doc ID: 76033 Mr. David Jung Page 13 of 19 July 18, 2017 • Sites may require a larger enclosure, or multiple enclosures, to accommodate on -site user access and/or additional waste types and containers. • Plan for user access to interior waste and recycling storage areas/containers, and convenient access to exterior containers screened by enclosure(s). Vehicle and Service Access • Plan for unobstructed enclosure ingress and egress for service vehicles, preferably in -line with enclosure openings. Allow appropriate turning radii for service vehicles, and minimize potential "blind spots" during entry and while backing. Screening Specification for Enclosures + Consider landscaping, setbacks and screening requirements, based on FWRC 19.125.040(4) & (5). Large Scale Projects and On -Site Waste Compaction • Note that larger -scale commercial or multi -unit housing developments may see long-term savings from the use of on -site waste compaction equipment. Planning elements for this equipment includes larger enclosure dimensions, defined overhead clearances, power utility access, and drainage management. o For grocery stores, restaurants, or multi -family facilities, "self-contained" waste compactors are preferred over "stationary" or "break away" compactors. Compactors may need to be covered and connected to the sanitary sewer, since compacted wet wastes can cause leakage and surface water nuisances. s Mixed -use developments may also benefit from on -site waste compaction equipment. Additional mixed - use development considerations include: o Designated chutes and/or internal facility maintenance areas or services for tenant use; o Movement of wastes and recycling items from interior units to collection areas; and o Enabling access by business tenants and/or residents to exterior waste and recycling enclosure(s). Help with many design parameters related to service access is available via the city's contracted solid waste services provider, Waste Management. Contact Route Manager Dian Young at 253-804-6815 (office) or 253- 455-0355 (cell). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT — BUILDING DIVISION (Peter Lawrence, 253-835-2621, peter.lawrencekci offederaimmy.cor► ) International Biwik6ng Code (IBC), 2013 International Mecbanical Code (IMC) 2013 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC), 2015 Washington State Amendments WAC 51-56 & WAC 51-57 Doc ID: 76033 File 17-102722-00-PC Mr. David Jung Page 14 of 19 July 18, 2017 International Fire Code JFC), 2015 Washington State Amendments WAC 51 -54 National Electric Code (NEC), 2014 (2017 NEC applies after July 1, 2017) Building Criteria ANSI 117.120091IAC 50-51 (Type A and B units) International Residential Code, 2015 (not sure if these are town homes or apartments) Washington State Amendments WAC 51-51 Wlashington State Energy Code, 2015 WAC 51-11 Occupancy Classification: R-3 Townhomes or R-2 apartments. Type of Construction: V-A Floor Area: UNK Number of Stories: 2 Fire Protection: NFPA 13D or NFPA 13R system Wind/Seismic: Basic wind speed 85 Mph, Exposure, 25# Snow load, Seismic Zone D-1 A completed building permit application and commercial checklist are required. (Additional copies of the application and checklists may be obtained on our web site at w\vu,.cinToffederalway.com.) Submit five sets of drawings and specifications. Specifications shall include: two soils report, two structural calculations, two energy calculations, and two ventilation calculations. Note: A Washington State Registered architects' stamp is required for additions/alterations (new or existing) of 4,000 gross floor areas or greater, unless specifically listed as an "exempt" structure per the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Energy code compliance worksheets are required to be completed and included with your permit application. A wet stamp and signature is required on all sheets of plans and on the cover page of any calculations submitted. Federal Way reviews plans on a first in, first out basis; however, there are some small projects with inconsequential review requirements that may be reviewed out of order. Some project may require a third party review or inspection. The cost to cover these fees is the responsibility of the applicant. Any third party fee is in addition to regular permit fees and costs. Review Timing The first comment letter can be expected within 6-8-weeks of submittal date. Re -check of plans will occur in one to three weeks after re -submittal. Revised or resubmitted plans shall be provided in the same format, size, and amount as the originally submitted plans. Revised/resubmitted drawings shall indicate by means of clouding or written response, what changes have been made from the original drawings. Plans for all involved departments will be forwarded from the Community Development Department. File 17-102722-00-PC Doc ID: 76033 Mr. David Jung Page 15 of 19 July 18, 2017 Other Permits & Inspections Separate permits may be required for electrical, fire suppression systems, and signs. Applicants may apply for separate permits at any time prior to commencement of construction. When required, special inspections shall be performed by WABO approved agencies, or by agencies approved by the building official prior to permit issuance. Construction must be approved by all reviewing departments prior to final building division inspection. All concerned departments (planning, public works, electrical, and fire) must sign off before the Building Division can final the structure for occupancy. Building final must, be approved prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Construction projects may be required to have a pre -construction conference. If a pre -con meeting is required, the general or representative, all subs, the architect or representative, the engineer or representative, electrical contractor, and any other interested party, should attend this meeting. Meetings will occur at the Building Division and will be scheduled by the inspector of record for the project. Site -Specific Requirements The information provided is based on limited plans and information. The comments provided are not intended to be a complete plan review and further comments are possible at time of building permit plan review. LAKEHAVEN WATER & SEWER DISTRICT (Brian Asbury, 253-946-5407, basbury .lakebaven.or Water • A Water Certificate of Availability issued separately by Lakehaven may be required to be submitted with any land use and/or building permit applications (check with land use agency for requirement). A certificate is valid for one year from date of issuance. If a certificate is needed, allow one to two working days to issue for typical. Currently the 2017 cost for a Water Certificate of Availability is ,$90.00. Fire flow at no less than 20 psi available within the water distribution system is a minimum of 2,500 GPM (approximate) for two hours or more. This flow figure depicts the theoretical performance of the water distribution system under high demand conditions. If more precise available fire flow figures are required or desired, the applicant can request Lakehaven perform a system hydraulic model analysis (separate from, or concurrent with, an application for availability). Currently, the 2017 cost for a system hydraulic model analysis is ,$210.00. A Lakehaven Developer Extension (DE) Agreement will be required to construct new water distribution system facilities for the proposed development. Additional detail and/or design requirements can be obtained from Lakehaven by completing and submitting a separate application to Lakehaven for either a Developer Pre -Design Meeting or a DE Agreement. Lakehaven encourages owners, developers, and applicants to apply for Lakehaven processes separately to Lakehaven, and sufficiently early in the pre- design/planning phase to avoid delays in overall project development. File 17-102722-00-PC Doc ID: 76033 Na. David Jung Page 16 of 19 July 18, 2017 The site does not have an existing or previous water service connection. • For water use during site construction/development, a hydrant meter may be rented from Lakehaven for this purpose. Please contact Lakehaven for further detail. ■ Service pressure(s) less than 40 psi potential, Lakehaven Service Agreement may be required, booster pump may be recommended, contact Lakehaven for requirements and/or additional information. • Based on the proposal submitted, preliminary estimated Lakehaven water service connection fees, charges, and/or deposits (2017 schedule) will be as follows. Actual connection charges will be determined upon submittal of service connection application(s) to Lakehaven. Connection charges are separate from any DE fees, charges, and/or deposits and are due at the time of application for service. All Lakehaven fees, charges, and/or deposits are typically reviewed and adjusted (if necessary) annually, and are subject to change without notice. + Water Service/Meter Installation, 1" preliminary size per dwelling unit: ,$4,230.00 deposit. Actual size TBD by Lakehaven based on the larger of UPC plumbing fixture count vs. fire -protection system demand. • Capital Facilities Charge(s)-Water, 32 MFR units @ 0.75 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU) per unit x $3,476.00/ERU: ,$83,424.00. • Service Agreement Charge(s), per unit, if applicable: ,$140.00. • County Document Recording Fees, per unit, if applicable: $80.00+/-. Sewer * A Sewer Certificate of Availability issued separately by Lakehaven may be required to be submitted with any land use and/or building permit applications (check with land use agency for requirement). A certificate is valid for one year from date of issuance. If a certificate is needed, allow one to two working days to issue for typical. Currently the 2017 cost for a Sewer Certificate of Availability is ;90.00. 0 A Lakehaven Developer Extension (DE) Agreement will be required to construct new sanitary sewer system facilities necessary for the proposed development, including extend-to-far-edge(s) in accordance with long-standing Lakehaven policy. Additional detail and/or design requirements can be obtained from Lakehaven by completing and submitting a separate application to Lakehaven for either a Developer Pre - Design Meeting or a Developer Extension Agreement. Lakehaven encourages owners, developers, and applicants to apply for Lakehaven processes separately to Lakehaven, and sufficiently early in the pre- design/planning phase to avoid delays in overall project development. • The site does not have an existing or previous sewer service connection. Based on the proposal submitted, preliminary estimated Lakehaven sewer service connection fees, charges, and/or deposits (2017 schedule) will be as follows. Actual connection charges will be determined upon submittal of service connection application(s) to Lakehaven. Connection charges are separate from any DE fees, charges, and/or deposits and are due at the time of application for service. All Lakehaven fees, charges, and/or deposits are typically reviewed and adjusted (if necessary) annually, and are subject to change without notice. File 17-102722-00-PC Doc ID: 76033 f� Mr. David Jung Page 17of19 July 18, 2017 ■ Sewer Service Connection Permit, per dwelling unit: $210.00 fee. • Capital Facilities Charge(s)-Sewer, 24 ERU (32 MFR units) — 16.92 Sewer ERU Credits x $3,325.00/ERU: $23,541.00. General ■ All Lakehaven development engineering related application forms, and associated standards information, can be accessed at Lakehaven's development engineering web pages u�vw.lakehaven.or 204 develo ment en � eerin . a All comments herein are valid for one year and are based on the proposal(s) submitted and Lakehaven's current regulations and policies. Any change to either the development proposal(s) or Lakehaven's regulations and policies may affect the above comments accordingly. SOUTH KING FIRE & RESCUE (Chris Cahan, 253-946-7243, vin-iis.cahan sotifhkin fire.or Water Supply Fire Flom) The required fire flow for this project is 2,Q00* gallons per minute. A Certificate of Water Availability, including a hydro &, fare flow mode4 shall be requested from the water district and provided at the time of the building pen -nit application. Fart Hydrants This project will require at least two fire hydrants in approved** locations. There will be at least two additional fire hydrants required within the complex. Existing fire hydrants on adjacent properties shall not be considered unless fire apparatus access roads extend between properties, and easements are established to prevent obstructions of such roads. Fire hydrants shall be in service prior to and during the time of construction. *Fire flow is based on an estimate of the size of the largest building (11,400 square feet - type VA); if these buildings are constructed as townhomes under the IRC, fire flow will be based on the square footage of the single largest unit. This will reduce the fire flow, but will not change the number of required hydrants. **Hydrant(s) spacing along access roads and location in relationship to buildings and sprinkler FDC shall be approved by Fire Marshal's Office Emergency Access: Fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all mquifzments of Fire Access Policy 10.006 (enclosed). The site plan did not provide detail to verify the following requirements: • Firefighter footpath and slope around building(s) exterior. Doc ID: 76033 File 17-102722-00-PC _ Mr. David Jung Page 18 of 19 July 18, 2017 • Maximum grades of access roads. a Angles of approach, departure, and minimum ground clearance. Designated and marked fire lanes will be required for emergency access. This may be done during the plans check or prior to building final. Requirements and marking options can be found in Title 8 of the FWRC: w�vw.codepublishic�.comlli�A IFederalWa�rl. Fire apparatus access roads shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Vehicle Access Gates All vehicle access gates shall comply with the Gate Policy (enclosed). Fire Department Lock Box Recessed fire department "Knox" brand key boxes shall be installed on selected buildings. Location(s) will be approved by the plan reviewer or Deputy Fire Marshal onsite. Fire Sprinkler System An NFPA 13R fire .sprinkler gstem is required (13D for IRC buildings). An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in all occupancies with a group R fire area. IRC buildings require fire sprinklers in the case of inadequate fire flow or sub -standard access. The system demand pressure (to the source) required in a hydraulically designed automatic fire sprinkler system shall be at least 10 percent less than the correlative water supply curve pressure. Fire Alarm Afire alarm system is reed (not required for IRC buildings). An automatic fire detection system shall be installed in all buildings exceeding 3,000 square feet gross floor area. The fire alarm system is required to monitor the sprinkler system including water flow. Provide full notification as required by NFPA 72. Complete coaarqge smoke detection as part of thefire alarm system is not regrrimd for this project. This fire detection system shall be monitored by an approved central and/or remote station. CLOSING This letter reflects the information provided at the preapplication meeting and is intended to assist you in preparing plans and materials for formal application. We hope you found the comments useful to your project. We have made every effort to identify major issues to eliminate surprises during the city's review of the formal application. The completion of the preapplication process in the content of this letter does not vest any future project application. Comments in this letter are only valid for one year as per FWRC 19.40.070(4). As you know, this is a preliminary review only and does not take the place of the full review that will follow submission of a formal application. Comments provided in this letter are based on preapplication materials submitted. Modifications and revisions to the project as presented for this preapplication may influence and modify information regarding development requirements outlined above. In addition to this preapplication letter, File 17-102722-00-PC Doc ID: 76033 Mr. David Jung Page 19 of 19 July 18, 2017 please examine the complete FWRC and other relevant codes carefully. Requirements that are found in the codes that are not addressed in this letter are still required for your project. If you have questions about an individual comment, please contact the appropriate department representative noted above. Any general questions can be directed towards the key project contact, Senior Planner Stacey Welsh, 253-835-2634, or state .welsh ci offederalwU_com. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, /jw-f-Z7'V64-� Stacey Welsh, AICP Senior Planner enc: Bulletin 001 `Process IV Submittal Requirements' Bulletin 002 `Mailing Labels' Bulletin 003 `Master Land Use Application' Bulletin 022 `CPTED Checklist' Bulletin 042 `Parking Lot Design Criteria' Bulletin 050 `SEPA Environmental Checklist' Bulletin 051 `Application for Shoreline Management Substantial Development, Conditional Use, or Variance Permit FWRC 19.220.080 Ordinance No. 17-834 Lakehaven Map Fire Access Policy Gate Policy c: Peter Lawrence, Plans Examiner Ann Dower, Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer Sarady Long, Senior Transportation Planning Engineer Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Water & Sewer District Chris Cahan, South King Fire & Rescue David Freeman, Snodgrass Freeman Associates, 7195 Wagner Way NW, Suite 201, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Doc ID: 76033 File 17-102722-00-PC CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE SIGXIN SHEET Federal Way Senior Housing ] 7-102722-PC .dune 29, 2017 NAME WITH PHONE Stacey Welsh � Community Development -Planning 253-835-2634 $5S Q-73 0 -732 Ar) ' 4 %Ali 4 700- PLO r&V se4KVIc.,'-_s G� . 24a 5 S%z 253-TeLa& 5�0 Lkw ECG ClPLAW—s- ZAIMAJ EC a II GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, Figure 2 Wetlands and Streams -0 Cwu, W a a a) a) C Cu _ T C N m (Q Cu O o X c Cu Q in N Q� _ ♦� c`- c O L W > ff`77V�t • 10 Q 11 C C C Y '0 0 (0 N O Y y E Y J Cl) A\ VJ v' (v L 4) O /A� L.L w. cD O O (n O (� O (n J N C J N Y O o O CL = O N N N 10 ` L rr^^ LL VJ LL 6 N C � C O 3t O a o L ?U) 0 r CAW A' a T a `l Cu -C .V LO o cv LL O 1 � T Q N p O E N N. Z L C � 10 O S:" W S AV 4;SZ -- - 36. tz n CAd ❑ � �e�onod'� � S R�Vf jB. S A%FJSF01 EE� s C1 �� w nns Ad isFr � �m V1 -J . uo ' AV 410 y � - ^•� n itd S'� r lob 0 as tQ- T � R r Syf` Map 20 42 x ccg �a9 S S. tl_ 3 8z _ - - -- - LL` d� W$ E � E y m 9� g r >• e£ � .� g L_ � u 'u m 2' �_ ��. e o 'ooai" 10 mm� I h I _8 Td•Nl ``. S ld H.I,YZ cl 1 S AV ON N S AV CHU S AV a= L 1yl Nr SAVORM ry w Ixj_ i 1 ! N 1 G i YSld lSi cc �S ld 1SLZ i 1 �i: jil r N N ! I- Y r _ c•• ! _3.1 I 1 SAV IS a VISIZ »—__-•-- I- SAV 1S lZ SAtl ASLZ- I I - +�I � - � m Hr _ S_AV MCC S AV HlOZ _ y co o f O 00 V ii .q u Co yd S AMH 3IAI3t/d S,AAk U CO L RELiON60 WAY S 5 Atl Hl$L SAtl H19L .S All Na, g AV. O N ni y"- O-• — errr•wan eY e u ` �F UKOigVil �u3Q� LLm�mz --I. Map 42 9 \` 1 @ n na a E jP E ep�gljF] age S = Es 08 c Emsg` m a2s'Usc#9� a=aa =�Fegga� N'�rEa_u- m.gY�ysggs2 8o'F''i�; n�Si�i3l.�",x.grg ? $ = Ep } i!t �1$ �g o��$��$F s g;F41 ®�:0 mm�;°ve0000a> ¢i¢ ama ma�m. xp zo ��rr��ap5SLEsF'S3#:€iiY S N V CL 2 co 0 N L 0 13 r darn i I N'� qi= TI: �I 4 c� m Q) (D Q> —;c CU CO J - - a 6 _ 3 -_..�. --.ERG:-..-. �------------_----- ... .. ... 7IR. . �E�'��l 'Ir. - � �L4) _ S n i m ' _ S AV UNZZ 4 AV axis a I Sao` m m 2o�q�� 411 , &At I 3 1 iNH363I I "m3mi, F S ArV H1as }spot Hue[ c, °7 ca 31do cj m x o r --• L1 N 0G cj rn In N •�,ii � � ESA memorandum date January 26, 2017 to David Jung 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW www.esassoc.com Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 206.789.9658 phone 206.789.9684 fax cc� (Dip r( from Christina Hersum and Ilon Logan subject Jung Property Wetland and Stream Assessment for Parcel 0421049057, Federal Way, WA attached References, Figures, Wetland Rating Forms, Data Plot Sheets This memorandum summarizes the results of a wetland and stream assessment conducted for the property located at 30300 Pacific Highway South, in Federal Way Washington (Tax Parcel 0421049057). The parcel is approximately 4.2 acres and is undeveloped. The findings of our wetland delineation and stream assessment are based on an analysis of existing background information, a field investigation conducted by Environmental Science Associates (ESA) biologists Christina Hersum and Michael Muscari on January 6, 2016, and a review of the current Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapters 15.10 Critical Areas and 19.145 Environmentally Critical Areas. ESA identified and delineated one wetland and one seasonal stream on the property. The western boundary of the wetland was flagged in the field and the northeast boundary was estimated (based on mapped contour lines) due to restricted access. The flagged wetland boundary location was recorded using a Global Positioning System (GPS device). Due to tree canopy cover and variable satellite reception; the GPS location accuracy was poor; as such, the wetland boundary provided on the attached map is approximate. For an accurate map of the wetland boundary, we recommend the wetland flags be located by a professional surveyor. Methods Methods defined in Regional Supplements to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual (Corps, 2010) were used to determine the presence and extent of wetlands in the study area. The methodology is based upon three essential characteristics of wetlands: (1) hydrophytic vegetation; (2) hydric soils; and (3) wetland hydrology. Field indicators of these three characteristics must all be present in order to determine that an area is a wetland (unless problem areas or atypical situations are encountered). The "routine on -site determination method" was used to determine the wetland boundaries. The routine method is used for areas equal to or less than 5 acres in size, or for larger areas with relatively homogeneous vegetative, soil, and hydrologic properties. Jung Property Wetland and Stream Assessment Memo January 2017 Formal data plots were established where information regarding each of the three wetland parameters (vegetation soils, and hydrology) was recorded. This information was used to distinguish wetlands from non -wetlands. Wetland boundaries were identified with sequentially -numbered colored flagging and data plot locations were also marked with colored flagging. Background Review Prior to our field investigation, ESA reviewed the following background materials for information pertaining to the subject parcel: • City of Federal Way Critical Areas Map (City of Federal Way, 2016) • King County iMap (King County, 2016) • National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Mapper (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2016) • National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Soil Survey (WSS) (NRCS and USDA, 2016) The City of Federal Way Critical Areas Map identifies a wetland and stream on the subject parcel, as well as an erosion hazard area (Figure 1). The King County iMap does not identify any wetlands or streams on the subject parcel. However, the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Mapper identified two wetlands on the subject parcel. A narrow riverine wetland and a palustrine emergent wetland are mapped within the eastern portion of the parcel, extending southeast to northwest from a larger mapped wetland system associated with Steel Lake (USFWS, 2016). Field Investigation ESA biologists identified one Category II wetland (Wetland 1) and a seasonal stream located in the eastern portion of the property. Wetland 1 continues off the property to the east and to the north narrowing into a channel approximately eight feet wide (Figure 2). According to GPS data and field notes, the onsite portion of Wetland 1 is approximately 1.0 acres (45,000 SF). The seasonal stream flows north to south and enters a culvert underneath South 304'h Street, eventually discharging to Steel Lake. Wetland 1 is depressional palustrine forested and scrub -shrub wetland (PFO/PSS) dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra — FAC), salmonberry (Rubus spectablis — FAC), and Himalyan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus — FAC). Other species identified during the site visit included western red cedar (Thuja plicata — FAC), swordfern (Polystichum munitum — FACU), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea — FACW), and English ivy (Hedera Helix — FACU); reed canarygrass, English ivy, and Himalayan blackberry are non-native invasive species. Within Wetland 1, soils were saturated to the surface and a water table was 6 inches below the soil surface at the time of investigation. Soils examined within Wetland 1 met the hydric soil indicator F3 (Depleted Matrix). See attached data plot 2 for more information. At the time of the site visit, the on -site portion of Wetland 1 was inundated and a stream channel was not visible due to the extent of inundation. In addition, all surface water within the wetland was frozen. Based on field observations, the seasonal stream generally meanders through the center of Wetland 1 and flows off the property to the east. Page 2 of 6 Jung Property Wetland and Stream Assessment Memo January 2017 Data plot 1 and 3 characterize the adjacent upland areas, and primarily consist of a mature forest dominated by western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), red alder, salal (Gaultheria shallon), Himalayan blackberry, and English ivy. A culvert is located to the east of the property boundary under South 300' Street. Water in the stream channel was frozen on either side of this culvert at the time of the site visit. The culvert appears to connect surface water discharge from Wetland 1 to a larger wetland system associated with Steel Lake (Figure 3). Regulatory Considerations Wetlands are regulated at the federal, state, and local levels. Agencies with jurisdiction include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), and the City of Federal Way. Development projects that impact wetlands or their buffers require permits and approvals from multiple agencies. Agencies typically require permit applicants to avoid and minimize wetland impacts before development approval is granted. Compensatory mitigation is usually required for any impacts that cannot be totally avoided. This section provides a brief overview of the main regulatory considerations that could affect the development potential of the subject parcels. Federal Regulations: The Corps regulates discharges of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States, including wetlands, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The purpose of the Clean Water Act is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." Proponents of development projects that involve filling or grading in wetland must obtain a federal permit prior to the development. The Corps requires permit applicants to avoid and minimize wetland impacts and to replace or compensate for unavoidable impacts so that there is no net loss of wetlands overall. State Re ulations: Projects that impact wetlands also require a water quality certification from the Department of Ecology. The state certification process is usually triggered through the Section 404 permit application. The state must certify that proposed activities will not adversely affect water quality or violate state aquatic protection laws. Ecology may issue approval, approval with conditions, denial, or a request for delay due to lack of information. Any conditions attached to the 401 certification become part of the Section 404 permit. City of Federal Way Regulations: The wetland on the Jung property is considered an "associated wetland" of Steel Lake due to its hydrologic connection via the seasonal stream that flows under S 304'h Street to the lake. Steel Lake and its associated wetlands are regulated as shorelines areas under the Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) (Figure 4), which was updated and adopted in 2011. Wetlands are classified into Category I, II, lII, or IV using the criteria provided in FWRC Chapter 15.10.250 (shoreline regulations). The code generally prohibits filling of wetlands except under limited circumstances such as stormwater conveyance. The City code also requires a protective buffer around each wetland and setback for each stream to insulate them from adverse effects of adjacent development. The size of the wetland buffer is based on the category of the wetland and the size of the setback is determined on whether the stream is a `minor' or `major' stream per FWRC 15.10.170. According to the criteria, Wetland 1 is a Category II wetland and has a standard wetland buffer of 100 feet. The seasonal stream meets the definition of a "minor stream" and has a standard stream buffer of 50 feet. Standard buffers for Wetland 1 and the seasonal stream are presented in Table 1. Page 3 of 6 Jung Property Wetland and Stream Assessment Memo January 2017 Table 1. Summary of Wetland Ratings and Buffers City of Federal Way Wetland Standard Wetland/Stream ID Category/Stream Type Buffer/Setback Width (FWMC 15.10.250) (feet) Wetland 1 II 100 Seasonal stream Minor 50 ESA wetland biologists also rated Wetland 1 using the Washington State Department of Ecology Rating System for Western Washington — 2014 Update (Hruby, 2014). The Ecology rating system provides a functional assessment of the wetland and the rating form may be useful for future permitting or consultation with the City (see Wetland Rating Form 1, attached). Buffer reduction and allowances for buffer use: Wetland 1 and its associated buffer encompass a majority of the subject parcel. The City regulations allow up to a 50 percent reduction in buffer width for Category II wetlands. To qualify for a wetland buffer reduction, the proposal must include a buffer enhancement plan, with additional specific criteria that must be met (see FWRC 15.10.270.5). City of Federal Way standards also provide limited allowances for wetland and wetland buffer uses (FWMC 15.10.270.6). These allowances are generally applicable to specific site improvements associated with a development proposal (allowances for certain stormwater facilities within wetland buffers, or for site access). Given development constraints caused by Wetland 1 and its buffer, ESA recommends early consultation with City staff for any proposed vegetation removal or site development to ensure that any proposed wetland and/or buffer alterations are consistent with the intent of FWMC 15.10 and to determine what compensatory mitigation would be required. Limitations Within the limitations of schedule, budget, and scope -of -work, we warrant that this study was conducted in accordance with generally accepted environmental science practices, including the technical guidelines and criteria in effect at the time this study was performed. The results and conclusions of this report represent the author's best professional judgment, based upon information provided by the project proponent in addition to that obtained during the course of this study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Thank you for the opportunity to prepare this memorandum. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call ESA at (206) 789-9658. Page 4 of 6 Jung Property Wetland and Stream Assessment Memo January2017 References Brinson, M. August 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wetlands Research Program. City of Federal Way. 2016. Critical Areas Map. h ://www.ci offederalwa .com/sites/default/files/m? stsensitive 2016. df. May 2016. Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Version 2. Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program. May 2010. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. itttp•//www.usace.army.mil/CECW/Documents/ceewo/reglwest mt fmalsupn.pdf. Federal Way Municipal Code. 2011. Chapter 15.10, Critical Areas, Shoreline Master Plan. Current through Ordinance 11-705, passed November 1, 2011. Available at: http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/FederalW���/. Accessed: January 2017. Federal Way Municipal Code. 2015. Chapter 19.145, Environmentally Critical Areas. Current through Ordinance 15-797, passed June 16, 2015. Available at: hap://www.codgpublishing.com/WA/Federal WU/. Accessed January 2017. Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest: An Illustrated Manual. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. Washington Department of Ecology (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. Washington Department of Ecology (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA. King County, 2017. King County iMap: Interactive Mapping Tool. Available at: http://gismaps.king_couply.gov/iMa 1 . Accessed: January 2017. Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. GretagMacbeth, New Windsor, New York. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 1995. Hydric Soils List for Washington. Revised December 15, 1995. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States - A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils. Version 7.0, 2010. ftp.//ftp- fc.sc.e ov.usda. ovlNSSCIH dric Soils/FieldIndicators v7.Pdf. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2017. Web Soil Survey. Available at: b=://websoilsurvo.nres.usda.goy/app/WebSoilSurvgy.aspx. Accessed: January 2017. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). Biol. Rpt. 88(26.9). United States Department of Interior, Washington, DC. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1993. 1993 Supplement to List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). Page 5 of 6 Jung Property Wetland and Stream Assessment Memo January 2017 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2017. National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper_html. Accessed: January 2017. Vepraskas, M.J. 1999. Redoximorphic Features for Identifying Aquic Conditions. Technical Bulletin 301. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. Page 6 of 6 Figure 1 City of Federal Way Critical Areas Map (City of Federal Way, 2016) GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, Figure 2 Wetlands and Streams i1 �k S 301 ST ST = r w U i Q �+ S 301ST PL N � �r ..��lip 302ND PL w Ile b3 0 C14 Z f. N S 304TH ST _. Rk; r` S 3b5TH P .. 4 ,. IMP y Steel Lake Cn LU Seasonal stream S� XNTH 0, 1 w LU Offsite wetland (Approximate boundary) --V Parcels e y N f tr �0und r " `Federal i1 Apo Way s I Z Lat, a/r�ltia ar sxr.'pan� � 1 �.. e s o>•h. qi . _ Ie [ r! . _ Qr i Tacoma !Celli b..�a 1.•rtr � ftirr�>n Audi ����,, 1 1 urenmpo._•_. 1 F' oi T� 1 Tmur ,.,t, P Milton Fife If Edgewood 1, Federal Way Shoreline Management Plan Federal Way and Its Potential Annexation Area Legend City of Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Regulated Shoreline 0 Puget Sound East Puget Sound - Dumas Bay Puget Sound West © Steel Lake © Star Lake Q Lake Dolloff © Lake Geneva Q North Lake O Lake Killarney 0 Five Mile Lake 0�*0.5�1 Miles N Map Dale: May 2006 asr oc Federal Way This map Is a=nvpemed by NO WwraMks, and!$ simply a graphic representalion Figure 4 City of Federal Way Regulated Shorelines Map (City of Federal Way, 2006) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: dune Property City/County: Federal WavlKino Sampling Date: 1Is117 Applicant/Owner: Davies State: WA Sampling Point: DP-1 Investigator(s): CH. MM Section, Township, Range: Sec 4. T21h1_ P4E: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 2 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 7.3d 3i427 Long: -i22.3 11g8p Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood material 0-6%slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ID No ❑ H dric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area Yes ❑ No y within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30) Absolute % Cover Dominant es? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Alnus rukra 20 Y�s FAC Number of Dominant Species 2 (A) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant (B) 4. Species Across All Strata: 50% _ 20% _ _ 20 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 100 (AIB) 5ar11in415hrub $1ralu_rn (Plat size: 15' That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1. Rabus spec[atdis 65 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Rubus 15 no FAC Total % Cover ol: MulliCiv by: 3. Polvstrtchum mu 10 no FACU OBL species x1 = 4 FACW species x2 = 5_ FAC species x3 = 50% = 45, 20% = 18 90 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10' UPL species x5 = 1. _ Colurpn Totals: (A) (B) 2 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5 ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting ❑ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8 J 9 ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) � 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 50%, 20% _ _ =Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15' 1. Hydrophytic 2 J Vegetation Yes © No ❑ 50% = 20% _ = Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2 0 Project Site: SOIL ,lunQ Progeny Sampling Point: DP-1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks 0-6 10 YR 212 100 to 6-17 10 YR 2/2 100 !o gravel 17-20 10 YR 2/1 100 to gravel 'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (Al0) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sand Gle ed Matrix S4 y y ( ) ❑ Redox Depressions F8 p ( ) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or oroblematic Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Water Marks (B1) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No S t ' P n O Depth (inches): 17 Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) ❑ Drainage Patterns (B10) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) [I Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) a uration resent. Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 16 Wetland Hydrology Present? (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Yes ❑ No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: JungProperty City/County: Federal WaylKlnn Sampling Date: 116/17 Applicant/Owner: David Jig State: WA Sampling Point: DP-2 Investigator(s): CH, MM Section, Township, Range: Sec 4_ T2.1N. R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0=1 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.331300 Long: -122 11102 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: 6fderwoQd material 0-6% slo NWI classification: NIA Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical far this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks ) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Yes ® No ❑ !` within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' Absolver Domi es? Eradicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Alnus n4p. 40 Les FAC Number of Dominant Species 3 (A) 2. Thug r>lira[a 5 no FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3. Total Number of Dominant 3 (B) 4 f — Species Across All Strata: 50% = 22.5, 20% = 9 45 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 100 (A/B) SaolinalShruh Stratum (Plot size: 15' That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rubus soectakis 25 ves FAC 2- Rubus Annemia�rs 10 ves FAC Total %Cover of: Multio_ 3 — OBL species x1 = 4 — FACW species x2 = 5 T FAC species x3 = 50% = 17.5. 20% = 7 35 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10') UPL species x5 = 1. Column Totals: (A) (B) 2 — Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 3 — 4 V ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5 ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6, ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting ❑ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8 9 ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 50% _ _, 20% _ Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 16) 1- -- Hydrophytic 2' —' Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ 50% _ , 20% _ _ = Total Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 Project Site: Juno Property SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confine the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc' Texture 0=9 10 YR 211 100 sa to 9-11 10 YR 4/1 95 10 YR 4/6 5 C M si to 1111=18 10 YR 3/1 50 5 YR 4/8 50 C M si to 'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1 ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ® Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) Point: Remarks some oroanic materials in this laver 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ 2 cm Muck (At0) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ® High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 46) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 6 Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes (includes capillary fringe) p ( ) Y 9Y ® No ❑ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Juno Properly City/County: Federal WaylKin0 Sampling Date: 1/6/17 Applicant/Owner: David un State: WA Sampling Point: DP-3 Investigator(s): CH, MM Section, Township, Range: Sec4.T21N. R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 2=3 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.331328 Long: -122 311168 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood material. 0.6% slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks ) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ H dric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area Yes ❑ No y within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes O No Remarks VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30') 1. Alnus nr6ra 2 7hura aAcala 3. 4. 50% = 27.5, 20% = 11 SaptinalShrub $traturn (Plot size: 15) 1. Rubus speclablts 2. Robus Armem 3. 4. 5. 50% = 17.5, 20% = 7 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10' 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 50% = 20% _ Woody Vine Stratum {Plot size: 15' 1. 2. 50% _ 20% _ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: Absolute Dominant Indicat % Cover -es? Status 40 yes FAC 15 ves FAC 55 = Total Cover 20 yes FAC 15 ves FAC 35 = Total Cover = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species 4 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: — Total Number of Dominant 4 Species Across All Strata: — Percent of Dominant Species 100 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: — Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of MuitiMy by: OBL species x1 = FACW species x2 = FAC species x3 = FACU species x4 = UPL species x5 = Column Totals: (A) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ❑ 1 — Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ® 2 - Dominance Test is >50% ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.0' ❑ 4 - Morphological Adaplationst (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic (A) (B) (A/B) (B) Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ Present? US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 Project Site: Jung Frcoertt SOIL Camr3�nn PniM. fSp-q Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Locz Texture Remarks 0-1 B 10 YR 3/2 100 sa to 'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Mat(x Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and El Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox De Fe Depressions P ( ) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or Problematic - Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (includes capillary fringe) Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Dry soil Yes ❑ No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 Wetland name or number Weiland 1 _ RATING SUMMARY — Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): Wetland 1 Date of site visit: 1/6/2017 Rated by Christina Hersum Trained by Ecology? D Yes El No Date of training 9/29/2016 HGM Class used for rating Depressional & Flats Wetland has multiple HGM classes? ❑ Yes ONo NOTE: Form is not complete with out the figures requested (figures can be combined) Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY II (based on functions Elor special characteristics El) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I - Total score = 23 - 27 X Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 Category III - Total score = 16 - 19 Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat Water Quality List appropriate rating (N, M, L) Site Potential M M M Landscape Potential H H L Value H L H Total Score Based on 1 8 6 6 20 Ratings 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC Category Estuarine Wetland of High Conservation Value Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest Coastal Lagoon Interdunal None of the above x Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9=H,H,H 8=H,H,M 7 = H, H, L 7=H,M,M 6=H,M,L 6 = M, M, M 5=H,L,L 5 = M, M, L 4=M,L,L 3 = L, L, L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland 1 Maps and Figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington ❑epressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 1 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 3 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 4 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2. 1, H 2.2, H 2.3 5 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 6 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 7 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2. 1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2. 1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1. L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to another figure) S 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2. 1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 2 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetirnnd i HGM Classification of Wetland in Western Washington For questions 1 -7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1 - 7 apply, and go to Question s. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? 21 NO - go to 2 ❑ YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? ❑ NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) ❑ YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. 1Z NO - go to 3 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑ The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; ❑ At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). El NO - go to 4 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ❑ The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. ❑ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. El NO - go to 5 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, ❑ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. 0 NO-goto6 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland 1 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. ❑ NO-goto7 0 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. ❑ NO-goto8 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 4 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland 1 DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. points = 2 1 0 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1 ❑ Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch- points = 1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic 0 (use NRCS definitions). Yes = 4 No = 0 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants >'/ of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants < 1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal Ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > 1/ total area of wetland points = 4 4 Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < % total area of wetland paints = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 10 Rating or tine votenval IT score 15- "-it - - - n LJ v - + I - nI -lv - 1 � •.- , -••," ... _.. D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1 - D 2.3? Source Yes = 1 No = 0 1 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating or uanascape rvieniiai it score is. u Ur 4 - r, 1-_, F LPN � - I■I - . - , - , -, ...- -. - D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, 0 lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? 1 Yes=1 No=O D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in 2 which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes abovel 3 Rating of value Ir score is: z - 4 = r, i_i -r = ivr u v — L- Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 5 .,,,I— &I- WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland 1 DEPRESSIDNAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic FUnctions fhe _.<<= f:Jilc-tlonS [C' flooding and dream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 2 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wetperiods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 3 0 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 ❑ The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft 6 inpoints = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. 0 The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 ❑ Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes abovel 10 Rating of Site Potential If score is: ❑12 -16 = H 216 -11 = M ❑0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic function of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 5.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes=1 No=O 1 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? 1 Yes=1 No=O Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes abovel 3 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: E13 = H Ell or 2 = M ❑0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding roblems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): • Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down - gradient of unit. points = 2 0 ❑ a Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down - gradient. points = 1 ❑ Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points = 1 ❑ The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 p There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood controlplan? Yes = 2 No = 0 0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 7 0 Rating of Value If score is: ❑ 2 - 4 = H ❑ 1 = M [1 0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Welland 1 These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? e H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata 1vit�may Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches be combined for each class to meet the threshold of % ac or more than 10% of the unit is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. ❑ Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 2 ❑ Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 0 Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points - 1 F-1 Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods ). 0 Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 0 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 3 ❑ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 El Saturated only 1 types present: points = 0 ❑ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland 2 Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ❑ Lake Fringe wetland 2 points ❑ Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftZ. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1. 1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. C*D(D 3 None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3 points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 7 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland 1 H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. El Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long) 2 Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland ❑ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) 3 ❑ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) 0 At least % ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) ❑ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 12 Mating of Site Potential It Score is: ❑ 15 - 18 = H 0 7 - 14 = M 00 - 6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat function of the site? H 2.1 Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: 5 % undisturbed habitat + ( 10 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2) = 10% If total accessible habitat is: 1 >'/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20 - 33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10 - 19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10 % of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: 20 % undisturbed habitat + ( 15 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2) = 27 5% Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3 Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (-2) -2 s 50% of 1 km Polygon is hi h intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If Score is: ❑ 4 - 6 = H [_I 1 - 3 = M r; < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat or species valued in laws, regulations, or policies. Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 0 It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) ❑ It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) ❑ It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species 2 ❑ It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources 2] It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) with in 100m points = 1 Site does not meet anv of the criteria above ooints = 0 Rating of Value If Score is: U 2 = H 1 = M i_ 0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland 1 WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfwOO165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/listi Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. ❑ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). ❑ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). ❑ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: Old -growth west of Cascade crest — Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests — Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. ❑ Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 — see web link above). F±1 Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. ❑ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161— see web link above). 0 Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. ❑ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report — see web link on previous page). ❑ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. ❑ Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. ❑ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. p Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 9 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland 1 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply In fb�! : q.n hgnr: ` 'Oe category .-<i xi_Zh.,-: appropriate crllsnk arie.o ot. SC 1.0. Estuarine Wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? ❑ The dominant water regime is tidal, ❑ Vegetated, and ❑ With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt ❑ Yes - Go to SC 1.1 p No = Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? ❑ Yes = Cate a I ❑ No - Go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? ❑ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina , see page 25) ❑ At least 3/ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un- grazed or un-mowed grassland. ❑ The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. ❑ Yes = Category I _ i No = CateqorV 11 SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? ❑Yes - Go to SC2.2 21No-Go to SC2.3 SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? ❑ Yes = Category I ❑ No = Not WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Tdwnship/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? htto:/Iwwwi .dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasea rch/wnhpwptlandspdf ❑ Yes - Contact WNHPMDNR and to SC 2.4 p No = Not WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? ❑ Yes = Category 1 ❑ No = Not WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? ❑Yes - Go to SC 3.3 21 No - Go to SC3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? ❑ Yes - Go to SC 3.3 F±1 No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30%, cover of plant species listed in Table 4? ❑ Yes = Is a Category I bog ❑ No - Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? I? Yes = Is a Category I bog [_._1 No = Is not a bog Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 10 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number Wetland 1 SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 conti-quous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. ❑ Old -growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. ❑ Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). ❑ Yes = Category I El No = Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? ❑ The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks ❑ The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) ❑ Yes - Go to SC 5.1 l] No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? ❑ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). ❑ At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un- grazed or un-mowed grassland. ❑ The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ftZ) ❑ Yes = Category I No = CateqM 11 SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: -. Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 _ Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 _ Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 ❑ Yes - Go to SC 6.1 2 No = Not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1 Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? ❑ Yes = Category I ❑ No - Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? ❑ Yes = Category II ❑ No - Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? ❑ Yes = Category III ❑ No = CategoryN Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 11 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Figure 2. Hydroperiods (D 1.4, H1.2) Light blue dotted line = seasonal stream; dark blue area = permanently flooded or inundated; green and blue hatched area = seasonally flooded or inundated; dotted light blue area = saturated only; black arrow = outlet. 6C OLO G washingtonstmo Water Quality Atlas war+ Legend Filter Data Zoom To Tools p Add or remove map data Assessed Watem/Sediment r. T x [] 1 P. Watcr - 1 W, — _ amew %0 Category 5 - 303d %0 Category 4L �^"^ • -,, �r %f Category 4B OWgory 4A category 2 %0Wegory t o r.n•.,. sediment M category 5 - 303d < I - u sire^si ® Category 4C 'M Ca"ry 48 i category 44 SJI-Ih 51 Category d .. ® category t- a � .. 5 �2J1b SI l2n'h rn. comm.. N Fedarrl lt'.v Change map data transparency _ : W. , 10% s 0 0.2 0.4nd Assessment standards Outlalls WQI Projects Figure 6. Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin; from Ecology website (D 3.1, D 3.2) Water Quafity Improvement Project Green River and Newaukum Creek Area: Multi -parameter Introduction Luaafad In naxarn Washbgaph 6'a- tll,i, teen llu a wan drake aavaL spurn mile. of 1an0 a "and Inf1Wn kviLo-n of Rip Cawley aad the 'ki#%of AWhn1, afack C.1amPnd. C. c1Aw, Kart, Maplt valid, Aenion, Ssa-Tac, and YI.kn41a. It Dews for — V] naln frgm lyr C4 ad. Mevuyint N ERax Bry, tUa .r exr-ml OrAnI,4 to "Gr rem Wwt innuda flanaWwl, ,sppP, 5prinpbraaY. end MIN Cteeh.- b"*LQum Creek is one of two major 5ubbasins targeted for their own TMDL studies on temperature and dissolved oxygen Newaukum Creek is a tributary to the Green River- Newaukum er+al noel abeat l+ mIIM horn its headwaters (3,000 ft above sea level) m the conFluence with the Green River near river mile 90.2 (180 N- above sea level). (See snide Area Ti e e Soos subbasin Is the other major basin. Work on the Soos watershed commenced In 2009. Infor matlon on the Soos may be found at: rmT•,5 ,_ Ce7-DL o,,. land use in the study area varies considerably from a mix of residential, commercial forestry and agriculNral land uses around the Riddle Green River, to residential, Industrial, and commercial land uses near the Lmver Green River - Water quality issues Portions of the Green River and Newaukum Creek exhibit unhealthy temperature and oxygen conditions that cause them to fail to meet Washington State water quality standards. Fish breathe oxygen in the water (dissolved oxygen). Cooler water holds more oxygen- Warmer water results In less oxygen for fish and other aquatic organisms. When water has too little oxygen or its temperature is too warm, local Fish can face thermal stress and harm. These streams serve as important migration -mid— and spawning and rearing areas for several salmon species, including Puget Sound Chinook; trull trout; coho; chum; pink; sockeye; k,kanee; st-11-i-d/rainbow, and cutthroat trout. These species all need cold waters for optimum health during various stages of their live, Status of the projects To address the water quality issues, In 2006 Ecology Initiated water quality improvement (also known as total maximum daily load, or TMOL) projects for temperature and dissolved oxygen In the Green River and Newaukum Creek, Ecology, King County, and others cooperated In a summer field study to collect data for the temperature and dissolved oxygen TMDL studles. As part of the TMDL study, Ecology identified the pollution problems and specified how much pollution needs to be reduced to achieve clean water As a follow-up to the TMDL study, Ecology works with the local community W prepare a water quality Implementation plan (WQSP) that details the specific actions needed to improve water quality In the basin, The plan describes management roles, activities, and —� M n y loco for partners are local partners are involved in this effort, including the hies O shoot Ndian Tribe, King County, U.S. wi Army Corps of Engineers, State Department of Agriculture, Tacoma Public utilities, and the cities of Aubum, Black Diamond, Kent, Tukwila, Renton, Covington, Maple Valley, Enumclaw, and otlrers. Volunteer groups, such as Middle Green River Coalition and Mldsound Fisheries Enhancement Group, watershed residents, and local businesses also play Important roles in Improving water quality. Green River Ecology developed a water quality improvement report (WQIR, also known as a TMDL) to address water temperature issues in the Green River. The WQm consists of the results and recommendations of a TMDL study on the Green River and an Implementation strategy to determine what needs to be done, and who will carry out the recommendations, to bring the Figure 7. Screen capture of TMDLs for WRIA 9; from Ecology website (D 3.3) PROJFCR INFO tawDon: WRIA: =9 (Duwamisl County: " Water -body Names Gram River Newaukum Creek parameters: Dissolved oxygen Temperature of Tilli Green River - 16 Newaukum Creek - I St. : Green River - approved by EPA Newaukum Creek - approved by EPA; has an mplemematlon plan Carnmctlnlo: Joan Nolan Phone: :.zm „25 Ethel: '@aP Nolar�ecv wa Oov NortlNrest Region Deparnnent of Ecology 3190160th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 99008-5452 Stacey Welsh From: Ilon Logan <ILogan@esassoc.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 11:13 AM To: Becky Chapin %1 Cc: Christina Hersum [` Jj" Subject: RE: 30300 Pacific Hwy Memo PC) Hi Becky, I can confirm that the wetland category is a Category II based on the rating system used for wetlands within shoreline jurisdiction. ESA completed the Ecology rating form to help in assessing functions of the wetland and in the event it could be useful in the future to the applicant (for state permitting). Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions. lion From: Becky Chapin [mailto:Becky.Chapin tyoffederalway.c�Ln] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 8:55 AM To: Ilon Logan Subject: RE: 30300 Pacific Hwy Memo Hi Ilon, I'm meeting with the applicant to discuss possible buffer reduction requirements. However, before I do I wanted to clarify some points in the memo. I noticed on page 3, it stated that per FWRC 15.10.250, wetlands are classified into Category I, II, III or IV and on Page 4 that the wetland was rated using Ecology Rating System. However, in the Shoreline the City's wetland categories are I, II, and III and we do not utilize Ecology's Rating System. Does this change the wetland category? Thanks, Becky From: Ilon Logan [mailto:ILa an esassoc.eom] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 5:20 PM To: Becky Chapin Subject: FW: 30300 Pacific Hwy Memo Here you are, Becky. lion From: Christina Hersum Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 3:47 PM To: David Jung Cc: Ilon Logan Subject: 30300 Pacific Hwy Memo Mr. Jung, Attached is a memo summarizing our wetland and stream assessment of your property in Federal Way, Washington. The report includes a map of the delineation, required data forms, and associated figures. During our field visit, we observed activity at the homeless encampment located on the adjacent property to the east and this in turn prevented our access to the eastern side of your property. However, we were able to estimate the boundaries of the wetland using mapped contour lines and observations made during our field visit and completed the field work that day. As you'll see in the letter, the wetland on your property is considered a Category II and has a standard buffer width of 100 feet, which would extend past the eastern border of your property. The seasonal stream has a standard buffer of 50 feet. Given development constraints caused by the wetland on your property and its associated buffer, ESA recommends early consultation with City staff for any proposed vegetation removal or site development to ensure that any proposed wetland and/or buffer alterations are consistent with the intent of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 15.10 and to determine what compensatory mitigation would be required. If there are any edits that you would like to make to the report, please let me know. Otherwise you can consider it in final form. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you and please feel free to contact me with any questions. Christina Hersum Associate Scientist ESA I Environmental Science Associates 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 206.789.9658 main 1206.789.9684 fax CHersum@esassoc.com I www.esassoc.com Christina Hersum Associate Scientist ESA I Environmental Science Associates 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 206.789.9658 main 1206.789.9684 fax CHersum(o7esassoc.com I www.esassoc.com Page 1 of 1 http://gismaps.kingcounty. gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisoutput/Printing/PrintingService_... 6/9/2017 CITY OF �.r Federal June 12, 2017 Mr. David Freeman Snodgrass, Freeman Associates 7195 Wagner Way, Suite 201 Gig Harbor, WA 98335 CITY HALL WayFederal Way, , Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway.. com Jim Ferrell, Mayor FILE. Re: File #17-102722-PC; PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE SCHEDULED Federal Way Senior Housing, 30300 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Freeman: The Community Development Department is in receipt of your preapplication conference request. The application has been routed to members of the Development Review Committee and a meeting with the project applicant has been scheduled as follows: 11:00 a.m. — Thursday, June 29, 2017 Hylebos Conference Room Federal Way City Hall, 2,,d Floor 33325 81h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 We look forward to meeting with you. Please coordinate directly with anyone else you would like to attend the meeting as this will be the only notice sent by the department. If you have any questions regarding the meeting, please contact me at stacey-wel&@6 Toffederalway.com, or 253-835-2634. Sincerely, Stacey Welsh, AICP Senior Planner c: David Jung, 622 South 3201h Street, Suite A, Federal Way, WA 98023 Doc. I.D. 76032 File 17-102722-00-PC CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TRANSMITTAL DATE: 6-9-17 TO: Cole Elliott, Development Services Manager Peter Lawrence, Plans Examiner Rick Perez, City Traffic Engineer Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Water & Sewer District Chris Cahan, South King Fire & Rescue FROM: Stacey Welsh, Senior Plai[ro FOR DRC MTG. ON: 6-22-17 - Internal with applicant -7/6 9:157o FILE NUMBER(s): 17-102722-00-PC RELATED FILE NOS.: 16-102464-AD, 00-100153-PC PROJECT NAME: FEDERAL WAY SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT ADDRESS: PARCEL NUMBER: ZONING DISTRICT: 30300 PACIFIC HWY S 042104-9057 BC PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed senior housing development of 11-12 units per acre on a -;-fr3 acre site. y� PROJECT CONTACT: David Freeman Snodgrass Freeman Associates 7195 Wagner Way NW, Suite 201 Gig Harbor, WA 98335 MATERIALS SUBMITTED: Master Land Use Application Cover Letter Site Plans Elevations aliak.- Federal Way RECEIVED MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8`h Avenue South JUN 0 7 1017 Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 253-835-2607;Fax 253-835-2609 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY %ww_cit offederalwa .cam COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 7-- 1 0 2 �22- ® 0 Pc APPLICATION NO(S) Date (,P �7-7/( T. Project Name���UI Property Address/Location Parcel Number(i) Z/�6 Project Description PITF:ARR PRINT Type of Permit Required Annexation Binding Site Plan Boundary Line Adjustment Comp Plan/Rezone Land Surface Modification Lot Line Elimination Preapplication Conference Process I (Director's Approval) Process II (Site Plan Review) Process III (Project Approval) Process IV (Hearing Examiner's Decision) Process V (Quasi -Judicial Rezone) _ Process VI SEPA w/Project SEPA Only Shoreline: Variance/Conditional Use Short Subdivision Subdivision Variance: Commercial/Residential Required Information 7:16 Zoning Designation Comprehensive Plan Designation O Value of Existing Improvements MILCGN Value of Proposed Improvements Ir-gationcal Budding Code (IBC): • Occupancy Type Construction Type Applicant Name: Address: 7t9t WAMRZ_ NN/^ ( - Zel City/State: WP*Az1V0k3cZ-_ zip: Phone: 253• 6S1•,03b3 Fax: gs 1 •�i39•o Email: c��ve�'� c�''+^c�s�•r�.� Siguatur • t Agent (if different than Applicant) Name: Address: City/State: Zip: Phone: Fax: Email: Signature: Owner Name: Address: (Q?�Z S • 324{� �'�' tz� A City/State: :FGft►ZA.-L NNe,4-f, WA. Zip: Phone: •u�cbD • •Zrd5 •4? 3� Email: c $(�HWR�,�►nn c� �.✓ �'.d 5 un � Signature: Bulletin #003 — January 1, 2011 Page 1 of 1 k:\Handouts\Master Land Use Application Snodgrass Freeman Associates, architects April 20, 2017 City of Federal Way Master Land use Application Statement of Architectural Design Intent Thank you for this opportunity to provide a statement of architecturakdesign intent for the proposed senior housing development located at 30300 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way. The proposed senior housing development is considered to be a moderate to low level intensity development of approximately 11-12 residential units per acre, on a 3.63 acre, (BC) zoned site. The site provides an excellent opportunity to emphasize the natural topography and natural beauty of this site. Due to the fact that the preponderance of the site is covered with class H wetlands or buffers only the western half of the site has been chosen for development. The clusters of single family units generally follow the natural topography of the site and, where necessary, the housing units step up or down in response to the grades. Building design and massing is a key design element as the six clusters of dwelling units will be able to take advantage of facade modulation to break up the building linear mass. Each of the units will offer two floor plan options. Exterior finishes will be vertical board and batten and horizontal siding with ledgestone for ground floor projected building elements. This will allow for several exterior material types and color options. The current unit design has all units with internal single car garages (senior housing is .5 stalls per unit) with a small apron area in front of the garage units. The entry facade has been broken into building elements, with one element projected beyond the adjacent element. This will provide for additional shadow casting beyond the facade modulation of each unit. We will be using landscaping screening to moderate the side (end units) of the cluster homes in accordance the community design guidelines. Building (unit) entries are also a prominent architectural feature while the garage width comprises only 40% of the front facade. Sincerely, Snodgrass Freeman Associates RECEIVED Gn-Y OF FEDERA!-WAY COMMUNITY Ui=VELOPMENT Ir W--A--J 0 El '� .� ��«. y_:.-• ;.'} - Sys - �"� i ii �. r �1 a�evrrr�e« CCTV OF Estimate of Development Traffic Impact Fees 2017 Federal Way Scroll down and complete the steps outlined below: Please fill in the required information in the yellow highlighted boxes. STEP #1: General Information Enter the following information _ Project Name Federal Way Senior Housi File Number 17-102722-00-PC Street Address 30300 Pacific Htghway S City, State Zip Parcel Number (s) 042104-9057 Traffic Impact Fee Estimated By SL Is this project locate within the City Center Zone? If "YES", please use City Center Impact Fee sheet. STEP #2: Land Use Type Select the proposed Land Use Type(s) from the drop down memu below. Enter the proposed number of units for the Project Proposed Land Use Type (s) 1) 3. Residential Condo/Townhouse 2) "NONE*' 3) "NONE*' 4) 1 "'NONE"' Unit of Measure dwelling N/A N/A N/A Number of Unit(s) Impact Fee Rate per Preliminary Impact 2,514.11 $ 85"2'F119. 7011-6ti.31 3v,10ti;31 -ssaooid jol apoo ail;oedwi;o;uaw/(ed aa;ap o; jala�j -;lun buplannp lei;uapisai Al!wel-916uws a jo; ea;;oedwi uoi;e;Jodsuei; e;o;uawAed aq; uoi;oadsui buippq jeui; o; jalap o; 'uoi;oas siq;;o s;uawaiinbei aq; q;inn;ua;sisuoo pue 'aouenssi;iwaad 6uiplinq o; joud awl; /(ue;e ';sanbai Aew;ueoildde uy aid pecitul uoi;epa sueal Jo ;uaLu ed paa.aa}ap COI uoi; ❑ - 9LWOO V6b ;oage ui uaq; appagos ea; eqj 6uisn 'panssi si;iwaad buippq eqj uagnn;ueoildde eqj wojl pa;oapoo pue passasse aq pegs sap;;oedwi aq; }o;unowe je;o; aq; 's;iwaad awoq pain;oe;nuew pue 's;iwjad buippq 1eguepisai Al!we;i;lnw 'Alpel-albuis ao; suoi;eogdde Ile and - (o)£ OLWOOV66 OIJMd -asn to 96uego panoidde ue to a;ep aq; uo pap ui appagos ail;oedwi aq; uo paseq pied pue pa;elnoleo aq pegs aal aq; 'paiinbaa si;iwaad 6uiplinq ou goignn aol asn ui 96uego a jod -aouenssi;iwjad o; joiad pied pue pail si uoi;eoildde;lwaad buippq pa;a1dwoo a awl; aq;;e;oa;}a ul appagos ee;;oedwi aq; uo paseq pe;elnoleo aq 11egs seal 's;uewdolanap PlOJawwoo and - (e)£ OLWOOV64 OMMd ;uaua ed aid;ae wi uoi;e:po sueal:aad 10 bullwil - OLWOOV66 •eve, ..�cs+� S 31VWIiS3 1N3W.kVd 33d 1O'ddWl OLLIV 11 WiOl S (%£) ead and;eJ;slulwP`d (6-9£o8) $ esn jo a6ueyO 6ulpnl3ul;uowlsnfpvn!pojo _4*44140 $ (;uaw;snfpe ejol98) oe=l pedwl ollleJl - (9£o8) If •10411of 'said ani;ea;siuiwpy 6uwpnloui ';unowe;uawAed aid;oedwl oi;lejl le;ol pa;ewi;se a;epoleo aid ;oedu.11 le10l :ti# d31S $ $ b'/N ..3NON.. (£ $ $ `d/N $ $ b'/N junowy aid ainsee" to iiun (s)ilun ainseaW ;oedwl tieuiwpaJd jad ale-8 aej pedwl to jagwnN lo;lun : ]NON. (s) edA_L asn puei pasodad -asn loud eqj to nnoleq seug aq; Ino pid 'asn joud eqj jol;oage ui ejej ail joedwl ;uaaino eqj of lenbe 4unowe eqj Aq peonpei aq llegs asn meu eqj jol aal;oedwl aq; 'asn joud eqj jol pannbei seen eel;oedwi ou 11 -asn joud eqj pue sesn nnau eqj ueaNeq aouejagp eqj uo paseq passasse aq Minn eal;oedwl aqj 'bulpllnq 6w;slxe ue to asn ui abuego a iod 3sn 2iORid '(seal uol;ej;slulwpe apnloul;ou o(3) clOd OIHd 1Nf10WH 33d 1O`ddWl asn joud eqj to tioba}eo asn puel eqj jol pled Alnoinajd ail joedwl Cue apinoJd (Z m asn 6ulllannp ao buippq 6ui4sixe a6uego o; jesodoid;uawdoIanpp o; saildde dels sigl (algeollddd ll) asn ul OBUMIOplpaJO - £# d31S CITY OF Estimate of Development Traffic Impact Fees 2017 Federal Way Scroll down and complete the steps outlined below: Please fill in the required information in the yellow highlighted boxes. STEP #1: General Information Enter the following information Project Name Federal Way Senior Housi File Number 17-102722-00-PC Street Address City, State Zip Parcel Number (s) Traffic Impact Fee Estimated By SL Is this project locate within the City Center Zone? If "YES", please use City Center Impact Fee sheet. STEP #2: Land Use Type Select the proposed Land Use Type(s) from the drop down memu below. Enter the proposed number of units for the Project Proposed Land Use Type (s) 1) 13. Residential Condo/Townhouse 2) "`NONE"` 3) "NONE" 4) ""NONE*' Unit of Number of Impact Fee Rate per Preliminary Impact Measure Unit(s) Unit of Measure Fee Amount dwelling 32 $ N/A $ N/A $ N/A $ 2,514.11 $ 80,451.49 $ 80,451.49 -sseooid jol apoo aal;oedwl to;uawAed jalap o; as}ay -;lun buillamp leyuaplsai Allwel-albuis a jol eel;oedwl uoijapodsuej; a to;uawAed ag; uol;oadsul 6ulpllnq leUll o; aalap o; 'uoi;oas sig; to s;uawaalnbai ay; g;lnn;ua;slsuoo pue 'aouenssl;lwjad 6ulpllnq o; joljd awl; Aue;e ';senbai Aew;ueolldde uy aad ;oe wi uoi;e:po sueal jo ;uaua ed paaaajoa jo; uoi; O - SL0'00 V6 6 ;oage ul uaq; alnpagos aal aq} 6ulsn 'panssl sl;lwjad 6ulpllnq aq; uagmjueolldde eq; wal pa;oalloo pue passasse aq llegs saal;oedwl eq; lo;unowe le;o; ag; 's;luuad awoq pain;oelnuew pue 's;lwaad 6ulpllnq lei;uaplsai Allwell;lnw 'Allwel-916uls aol suol;eolldde Ile god - (o)£ 01.0.00 -66 3MMd -asn to a6uego panoidde ue to a;ep aq; uo;oalla ul alnpagos eel;oedwl eq; uo paseq pled pue pa;elnoleo aq llegs aal eq; 'paalnbai sl;lwjad 6ulppq ou golgm jol asn ul abuego a and aouenssl;lwjad o; aolad pled pue pap sl uol;eolldde;lwjad bulppq pa;aldwoo a awl; aq};e;oalla ul alnpagos eal;oedwl aq; uo paseq pe;elnoleo aq llegs seal 's;uawdolanap leloJawwoo JOJ - (e)£ OLO.OU-64 3UMd ;uaLu ed 08d13e wI u011ePo SueJl:aaA 10 tjuIWJJL - OL0'00V61II, V0,998'Z8 b9'£ Lb'Z 617 694'08 $ 31HW11S3 1N3W"d 33d 1OVdWl 31ddb211 W101 (%g) aad and;eJ;slulwPV (6-9508) asn to a6uego 6ulpnloul;uew;snfpyplpajo (;uaw;snfpe ajolae) ead;oedwl oll;ejl - (9E08) saad and;eJ;slulwpy 6ulpnloul ';unowe;uaw/(ed aad;oedwl ollleil le;ol pa;ewl;sa a;elnoleo $ 0 b'/N `d/N b'/N ;unowy aad amseavv jo;lufl (s);Iun amsealN ;oedwl tiewwllaJd jad a;e�j aad;oedwl ;o jagwnN ;o;lun aad;oedual leIol :V# d31S ..3NON.. (£ ..3NON (Z ..3NON.. (l (s) adA_L asn pue posodad •asn loud aq;;o molaq saug eq;;no pld -asn joud ay; jo;;oa}}e ui a;ej as;;oedwl ;uaiino aq; o; jenba;unowe aq; Aq peonpai aq 11egs asn mou aq; jo; eel;oedwi aq; 'asn joljd aq; jo; pannbai seen ea;;oedwl ou;l -asn joud eq; pue sasn mau eq; ueamgaq eouaja};ip aq; uo peseq passasse aq I1lnn eel;oedwl aq; '6ulpllnq 6ul;slxe ue;o asn ui a6uego a jod 3sn 2i0Rid -(seal uol;ej;slulwpe apnloul;ou o(3) 230d aldd 1Nnovgv 33d 1OHdWI asn joud aq;;o koba;eo asn puel eq; jo; pled Ainolnajd eel;oedwl AUe apinad -asn 6ulllamp ao 6ulpllnq 6ul;slxe abuego o; lesodoid;uawdolanap o; salldde da;s slgl (algealiddd;l) asn ul aBUBLIO 1pa-JO - £# d31S I co ...... . ... ...... Z. . tin, Es a: =: STET S 3AV H10Z vii u z N S r � N.7; � P w o OE _ dz .... ... ...... _.._.r A• ._."... S... �." ----" - .. X _ _ _ OE ^ U E-1 4' as eTEc 6-0 -.. OE- 0 W 4k Rear Elevation Scale 1/8"= 1'-0" Side Elevation Scale 1/8"= 1'=0" J:ML 111101 Front Elevation Scale 1/8"= 1'-0" G�do C� L/1 i� c869 auq S41acfo.xd a- /00 �. ,I O moo o alst�ea� a 9 m cKf auff Z42acdoaj iqjrioS XEAA.t.H 3Ua31gd b•A � � v rA l un a Q b c06I aug �1-rado rd Ici y 'd O Go C) 4i O , O a + 41 o cn 0 o oxi 2 a)0 p o cd cd U 3� j a) cd p - bn o 0 t w P 6). cd .:i y o 0 0 Cd 0 eJ +` P, 0 N UD ° o � ~ oho ~ oad In.-+C3 a b0ocd 3 A N O O o 3 0 N o � 00 %-^ O 0 LzI n 1 O � Seasonal Stream u U LA �2 L � ` y O 4p I 7 1S 0) N L E z -i a1 a1 a..L ro a a 0 a a� 0 N � a 3 to t N c o 0110 m Q C u � c'^ n E v to -0 4, (31 p in 87) Cm n N 4- O 7 _ o V) a o o_ 41 — i N r6 sjw ,86S Gail Apadozd I 0 a _ r OL �y sn O 3 N O 71 C p"{ C) a) d � Q ;06I Gull a.dom Cd � b � N W 3 y s~ 3 P4 N N N SD O .--� �n 'C 44v1 N 4-1 en \ O p A d O "O � � 30-� v1 U v1 a eAn,oby��`o3�� c� w 4-4 00 en 71 to c+ O y Cl ..r v� U O- O +.+ Cd - 0 O 0. V 0 ° o.; o. 'o p to 0 ...r .., P4.1 ev 3 0 0 4) W s. v cd O c� e� � J,I17 Gull 41adoa j i gj-noS SuAtgtig 3Ui34ud